> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Deborah Harrell wrote:
<snipping a lot that seemed unnecessary for
comprehension>
> > > >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....that destroys
> > > >the credibility of that government.
> > > As others have pointed out, there is no reason
> > > why any of the above should be true.
> > ... a 'moral imperative'
> > should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is
> > a softer reason than, say, the other guy has
> > missiles pointed at your capital.
> > > ...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?
> > ... 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.... 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.
If your moral reasons are 'unimpeachable,' yet you are
unable to get a concensus b/c other countries are fine
with the (in this case) genocide going on, you can go
ahead and do it alone. I already agreed in the past
that the UN is far from perfect, so while I prefer
concensus, I would not let its lack hinder me in
taking necessary action.
> ...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.
If we can -
> 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.
Which would have to be soon.
> 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.
??? Using "morality" as sole justification for
intervention is exactly what I have said is
problematic; but nowhere have I stated that one needs
a "permission slip" from the UN to act when one sees a
clear need to do so. BUT we'd better be damn sure
that we're *right* -- in the case of smacking down the
janjuin (sp), we also better have help from Sudan's
neighbors. And a very clear mission statement, such
as "any armed forces in this interdicted area [Darfur]
will be asked to surrender immediately -- or be
shot/bombed/otherwise eliminated."
Debbi
Nastily Pragmatic Indeed Maru
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
