>The topic of discussion has been interventions in general.
This is the difference between pragmatists and others, maybe: the topic arose in a particualr context, outrs, where the invasion of Iraq is on the table.
Whether the
>current state of affairs in Iraq may reasonably be referred to as
>"peacable"
>I'll leave to others. Whether or not we should invade Iraq is another
>question I'd best leave to others: I see good reasons for and against.
What the hell else were we talking about? And what good reasons could there be for the US, as it is now constituted, under present circumtsnces, to invade a country that is now and for some time doing no one else harm and threatening no one else?
>
> > If you want to start talkinga bout US intervention where it might be
>useful to stop
> > an ongoing massacre,w here there is no peace to be maintained, how about
>an
> > attack on Israel for its activities on the West Bank and Gaza? So it's
>ludicrous of
> > the US not to invade there?
>
>I think forceful intevention from outside might do the Israelis and
>Palestinians some good, although I don't think Israel's activities
>constitute "an ongoing massacre"
What does, then? Every day for almost two years the IDF has been shooting Palestinian children, rocketing Palestinian leaders, levelling houses, etc.
(nor, I hasten to add, do the actions of
>the suicide bombers). Not invading is probably more reasonable, but not by
>way of your "preserving a nonexistent peace" rationale.
??
>
> > Because of the "leftists" tag or because of the "embraces Bush doctrine"
> > tag?
>
>You're on fire today, Justin. Funny stuff.
>
No, I'm not kidding. I don't see how advocay of US intervention abroad is a left position.
> > What exactly is your problem with the Bush doctrine, since you think
> > the US has the right and maybe the responsibility to invade anywhere
>where
> > there is no peace, according to you, becase at some point in the past
>the
> > dictator undertook a massacre of his subjects?
>
>The preceding alone ain't the Bush doctrine, which is quite explicitly
>linked to "our" national interests and is neutral to the interests of
>foreign subjects.
Oh, I see. It would be OK if, counterfactually, a great power would ignore its own interests and act purely benevolently. I'm with W on this, that's cloud-cookoo-land stuff.
>
> > By the way, how great a massacre is bad enough?
>
>That, of course, depends on the circumstances. Sometimes forceful
>intervention will do more harm than good even in the bleakest of
>situations.
Which means the abstract discussion is perfectly useless if untethered to concrete analysis of the concrete situation.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com