Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral > > imperative' > > should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a > > softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles > > pointed at your capital. > > Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, because > it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment > to other people - people who have an interest in > acting in an immoral fashion. All of the arguments > you and he make _completely ignore_ that fact. We > have many, many examples of different ways in which > the countries whose sanctions you advocate us seeking > have showed that moral concerns have little or no > claim on their stated beliefs.
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. If however, the USA's every thought and deed is always based purely in their moral concerns, and these morals and ethics are always unimpeachable (if such a concept were even possible), then you are of course absolutely right. Perhaps that is what you believe. I don't know. I like America, but I don't think it is perfect. > > As others have pointed out, 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. 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 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
