At 03:26 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Deborah wrote: >>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. > ><raises eyebrows> Do you really live in such a >black-and-white, either/or world? Who are you to >tell me I shouldn't go ahead and act if I can't get >agreement because somebody(s) being weaselly, when I >see clearly that action is needed?
Because you have apepared to argue on this list that the US should not have launched Gulf War II in part because it did not have international consensus behind us. >>They are fundamentally inconsistent positions. > >According to you. I did my best to stay on the >"right" side of policy and law, but do you think that >ANY physician practicing hasn't had to twist, finesse, >or outright slip the system in order to get at least >one of their patients needed care? But you appear to be lambasting the Bush Administration for doing precisely that! JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
