On May 10, 2005, at 7:05 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
'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?
Following your (admittedly regrettable) logic, the fact that the US is stretched out in Iraq amounts to tacit approval of pretty much any horror that might come along. Assuming that the decision to act in Iraq was made rationally, the decision must have taken into consideration the fact that any number of situations might arise (and might have been already brewing) where the US would not be able to intervene. Bets are placed and dice are rolled.
On the topic of the US being stretched out in Iraq, my 8-year-old son was brought to tears last night by the list of items being requested by soldiers through www.operationshoebox.com -- his school is gathering toiletries, snacks, games, and other items to send to our soldiers in Iraq. What moved him was the sad simplicity of the items being requested: plastic spoons, tooth brushes, sun screen... His heart was broken to think about the soldiers having to beg for such basic stuff.
I was reminded of the bumper sticker that reads, "It will be a great day
when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to
have a bake sale to buy a bomber." It's painfully ironic that we have arrived at that day, but it
seems that there is plenty of money for bombers, but the poor soldiers
have to beg grade-schoolers for chewing gum and nail clippers.
Dave
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
