--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam, why is it that only other countries have > self-interested > agendas? > Is it possible that now and then, America does too? > I think it is, and > that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second > opinion.
No, the question is the exact opposite. Why is it that you claim that it's _only_ America that acts only in its self-interest, and everyone else gets a pass? We constantly hear about war for oil or what not in the US's case, when there's no logical connection there. But when there _is_ a connection between corruption and self-interest and nations that _oppose_ the United States - not a word. Other countries - Britain, for example - do sometimes act in ways that are not purely self-interested. That's why you have to analyze each case. Now, in the Sudan, we have a case of genocide going on where the US is saying "Let's try to do something". And France is saying "There's no genocide here." Now one of those two countries has massive oil contracts with the Sudanese government. I leave you to guess which one. And which one is more likely to be acting for selfish reasons. > Perhaps that is what you believe. I don't know. I > like America, but I > don't think it is perfect. You have a funny way of showing it. You know, I constantly hear, "I like America" from people who never have anything good to say about it and who oppose everything it does in the world - particularly when they are the _beneficiaries_ of what it does in the world. You'll forgive me if the simple statement doesn't quite convince me one way or the other. > To use an argument style that really peed me off, > does this inability to > intervene in Darfur because the US is stretched out > in Iraq, mean that > support for the Iraq war is functionally, tacit > approval of the > slaughter in Darfur? > I Was Shocked Too Maru > > Andrew Well the argument probably "peed" you off because it's _true_. People said "Don't invade Iraq." And we said "That will leave Saddam Hussein in power." And they said, "Don't invade Iraq." And we said "The _only way_ to remove Saddam Hussein from power is to invade Iraq." And that statement is true, and hasn't been refuted by anyone on the list, and can't be refuted, because it is, in fact, a true statement. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't worth the cost. But you can't say that opposing the invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_. And no, in this case it's not true, because whether or not we were going to do what we did in Iraq, we wouldn't be invading the Sudan. A quick look at a map will tell you why. It's an _awfully_ big country. It would pretty much take the whole US army to occupy it. And we're not going to do that. Iraq really didn't have anything to do with that choice one way or the other. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
