----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:42:50 -0400
> From: gadfly at exitleft.org
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc (and other responses)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message includes replies to: Doug Henwood, John Mage
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Messages in this collection:
>
> * Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc
> * Re: [lbo-talk] "Save Darfur": Evangelicals and Official ...
> * Re: [lbo-talk] "Save Darfur": Evangelicals and Official ...
>
>
> =========== Message 1
> =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc
>
> At around 28/4/06 5:50 pm, John Mage wrote:
> >
> > If the US had sent maximum supply to the USSR&UK, but no military to
> > Europe in WW2 (for all practical purposes the situation up until June of
> > 1944 - when the Nazis had already lost), then the Red Army would have
> > reached the channel, the partisans would have been in power in all the
> > original EU, and the world would be a far far better place.
> >
>
> I don't understand the above... are you saying that the world would be a
> better place if the Soviet Union + Bloc had included all of Europe? This
> seems patently untrue to me!
>
>
> =========== Message 2
> =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] "Save Darfur": Evangelicals and ...
>
> At around 28/4/06 5:42 pm, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > I don't think the U.S. government can be trusted to do any good abroad.
> > You wouldn't hire a convicted embezzler as your investment advisor,
> > would you?
> >
>
> So, then, who else? Do you really think the rest of the world is pure as
> the driven snow? ;-) The U.S gets away with doing monumental harm today
> because it has the power to do so (and so would most "civilization"s).
> But for that very reason (its power) it is the best equipped and suited
> to act in a positive manner.
>
>
> =========== Message 3
> =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] "Save Darfur": Evangelicals and...
>
> At around 28/4/06 4:28 pm, Doug Henwood wrote:
> > ravi wrote:
> >
> >> Where do you guys get "always believe military force is the solution"?
> >
> > I didn't say that. I said that there are a lot of liberals who
> > desperately want to be seen as not-wimps.
> >
>
> Yes you didn't say that. The other guy (Steve Robinson?) did. Yes,
> liberals want to look muscular (hence the excessive scientism, IMHO),
> but in this case, we might as well employ Occam's Razor before looking
> at their (our) psychological motivations: the simpler explanation, I
> believe, works quite well. We are confronted by a genocide and support
> action to stop it. We could do a protest march in Darfur, or create a
> blog, argue with other leftists on the Internet, etc. We could also
> pressure our government to work with the U.N to enforce order.
>
>
> > I do think, as a
> > matter of empirical record bordering on principle, that nothing
> > involving the US military is good, or can be good. There's no way the
> > Pentagon should be recruited to "save Darfur."
>
>
> Are there no instances of the U.S participation in U.N peacekeeping,
> that has led to a betterment of the situation? I find the above
> difficult to believe. Do I need to Google?
>
>
> > For Americans, our prime
> > responsibility is to stop the abuse of Iraq, and everything else should
> > take a back seat to that for now.
>
>
> Genocide should take a back seat? You cannot be saying that. So, what
> are you saying?
>
> --ravi
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk