Evidently you and Brad are not believewrs in international law; you are in
fact believers in ionternational vigelanteism by anyone who can get away
with it, so long as they're "special," as Rice puts it.
>
>OK. Are you then willing to grant that, so as to best preserve the peace,
>Nazi Germany should've been left alone if it had merely killed it's own
>Jews
>and refrained from attacking other nations?
I have said that Rwanda was a hard case for my view. For your example,a Nazi Germany that was not aggressively imperialist would have poseda very different situation. And what would you say the utilitarain calculus suggests, Luke, if the choice was a world war and 50 million dead, or half a million murdered German Jews? Bear in mind that unlike you, I am not a utilitarian.
>
> > A call that is not yours to make.
>
>To act as an agent on the behalf of those who cannot effectuate their
>desires is sometimes a very good thing.
Because I am not a utilitarian I find paternalism exceedingly obnoxiosu, especially if it carried out by parties who are arrogarnt, ruthless, violent, self-interested, and havea bad history themselves.
>
>
>Look, I have my doubts. But they're not grounded in the belief that the US
>can never be an effective agent for change via forceful intervention.
Oh, I think the US did the right thing in fighting WWII. But this aint WWII. And saving the Jews had nothing to dow ith why the US fought WWII.
> > Recall that I'm a liberal as well as a leftist. I'm trying to preserve
>our
> > good name against the likes of you and Brad.
>
>Maybe we should call in John Rawls to settle the issue :)
>
A possible Rawlsian response is that we're not entitled to use force merely bedcause we happen to have it . . .
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com