----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
> Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The > president's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the state of the > union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United > States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of > "hall pass." That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest > that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before > acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. The obvious question here is whether "seriously consider" means more than just "seriously consider." The US is unique in that it can project meaningful military power. The strongest example of that is the Balkans, where Europe was unable to project power 500 miles from the German border against a relatively weak Yugoslavian army. Thus, the heavy lifting in any significant military action must be done by the United States. Do you think that, after seriously considering objections, it is OK for the US to go ahead, or must it get approval. For me, the argument that the United States should have had Russia approval (needed for UN approval) to stop the genocide in the Balkans is not very strong. The Russian government had reasons to turn a blind eye to this genocide. I think that the decision as to the wisdom of invading Iraq need not give a strong weight to France's position, since they appeared to be in a position to gain significantly if Hussein stayed in power. So, if your argument is that Bush tends to be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when he is certain, then I will agree. But, if it that, for the US to properly consider the views of other nations, that it must give veto rights over certain foreign policy actions to other nations, then I would tend to differ with that. An extremely good set of articles that relate to this are available at: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/871 I think much of the argument can be framed as a difference between two worldviews: If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise then we should start acting in accordance with the rules that should govern nations in a Kantian paradise now. If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise, we need to live in the world, recognizing that the present rules are Hobbsnian. If we act as though it were presently a Kantian paradise, we invite disaster. I'll agree beforehand that the first position may actually be more idealistic than the views of folks on the list, but I think I heard that type of argument a good deal in the last couple of weeks here. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
