From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 18:05:19 MST
> I'm NOT saying that this has any direct resonance with US[or UN] v Iraq. I'm
> not even saying it's a particularly exact account of what happened with
> US[or Free World] v Communist Menace. I am suggesting that `Go read the
> history books on WWII to see how far that approach will get you' has limited
> value as an argument.
Granted. I'm not sure how indeed one can make valid comparisons.
The U.S. intervened with Japan and Germany and probably saved many
lives. At the same time it refrained from intervening in the USSR
(your WWIII) and probably implicitly allowed the deaths of many
individuals. [Stalin died in 1953 with the blood of 25-30 million
people on his hands: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5308]
To be very honest I don't have a good benchmark for when one should
or should not intervene. My gut however tells me that it would be
better if we were more proactive in interventions if only to prevent
people like Stalin or Saddam from thinking they could run amok with
the people of neighboring countries or their own people.
As my comments vis-a-vis "West Wing" point out -- *when* will we
view it as a moral imperative to disallow "dictators" from abusing
the fundamental human rights of their citizens?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 18:07:52 MST