--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nooo, but if it's said that we had a moral > imperative > to go into Iraq, the same exists in Sudan (and did > for > Rwanda too) -- the difference as I see it at least > partially involves oil or economic importance to the > US.
Yes, that's right. The purpose of foreign policy is to serve our national interests. Global meliorism is something to be done with your life at the end of the day, not other people's. If we can, in the process of serving our interests, also help other people, that's _great_. We should ensure, as much as possible, that serving the national interest does not _harm_ other people. But the use of force in foreign policy is not, in fact, morally justified in inverse proportion to the extent to which doing so is good for the United States. I have said this over and over and over again. There is no more clear way to say it. You may disagree. If you feel that the United States should not look after its own interests in the world, fine. I think that's a ridiculous position, but it is, in fact, a position. But if you're saying "oil or economic interests" as if it was an accusation. It's not. Killing and dying is too important to do it because it makes people feel good. If you can do good in the world, you should. But it's not the first or most important thing that a state does in foreign policy. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
