> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Dan Minette
... > The reality of the situation is that if the US doesn't do > something about a > place like Rwanda, the Balkins, Iraq, nothing will be done. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I'm also not sure it matters. Even if others had the power to step forward, if we also have such power, we also should step up. Where Iraq is concerned, there is little disagreement that something must be done, but great disagreement about what. And *what* to do in these sorts of situations is rarely clear, as any study of ethics quickly shows. Obviously in the case of Iraq, sovereignty is hardly an issue at this point, but if often is, for example. > The other > countries that could do something have a moral responsiblity for sitting > back, I don't understand what you're saying here. > but US policy must be based on the fact that everyone else > may or may > not give the US token help, but that's about it (in GB's case its > more than > token). The citizens of the US are in a unique moral position. It is an obligation, or at least a calling, if I understand you correctly. And I agree. It's like the cliche: from those to whom more is given, more is expected. On the other hand, I tend to abhor anything that smells of prosperity gospel -- the idea that one's wealth is evidence of one's righteousness. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for us to imagine that we surely must be better people *because* we have the power to effect change. I guess it's like the anthropic principle, but applied to the existence of power, rather than life -- there is not a purpose for which we are given this power; rather, we are called to use our power to a purpose. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
