----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:36 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
> Dan: > >dland: > <snip> > > > Dan Wrote: > > > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, > > > >> > > > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and > > > >> therefore is in a position to "let" or "not let" > > > >> nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps > > > >> we might consider other nations as adults, instead > > > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs > > > >> to discipline. > > > > > > > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never > > > > found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A > > > > police force that looks the other way lets them > > > > run a city. > > The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, > and the US is not a police force. The US is just the > strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations > can be stronger than the US, but at present these > nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, > this alliance might form, which might start another > cold war. You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a world in which China were the major power? Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect the US to look after its security interests. There is a lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing that the US can be counted on to ensure that the government of China does not conquer others (such as the people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls the tune. >Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. There would be so many ways to challange the US short of that type of war, that I can't see this. For all of it's displeasure, Europe is making no moves to stop its reliance on the US's defence of it's interests. Japan and South Korea are working to lessen theirs, but that has been with the encouragement and cooperation of the US. > > 1) Is the African violation of international law by > > temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong? > > 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called > > upon? > > If the US against the international legal system, they > should think about the reactions. Other nations might > not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any > more. And then the US people will wonder once again > why the world hates them so much... > > If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they > didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible > genocide, and accidents with US troops killing > civilans are rare, the US might even get a better > reputation. > (I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi > children were the main reason for the invasion. But > I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and > Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.) No, but it was a factor in the discussion going into it. Gautam has listed 4 criteria for a war of choice....which have been ignored by anyone but me. I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why others would not wish to consider them. A war of choice must 1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war 2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being reached. 3) Other reasonable means have been tried. 4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region. Starting a war will kill civilians, there is no way around it. If the number of civilians killed by the government in a year is greater than the range of civilians expected to be killed during the war and the rest of the year after the war, then the civilians are better off with the war than without. It is a consideration....the other considerations of US national interest were very complicated. > Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by > NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the > intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true > altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal > system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic > nations. > I have hoped for such altruistic interventions > several times in recent years, but most of the time > they either weren't altruistic or there was no > intervention... Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe, when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house? If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense to take responsibility for those areas where the US was glad to just help out, as in the Balkans? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
