Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World
I agree that the US government has no responsibility to protect the rights of people in other countries.. my point in saying that intervening in Somalia was a "moral" decision was simply to argue that a large segment of the American population would view it as such, and I think our leadership at the time took that viewpoint of morality.
While you are correct that we won't know how something works until it actually occurs, we can look at the historical record, and make an educated guess on how something will turn out.
For example, if I were to jump off a five story building, I don't know for certain that I will die until I do it and die...but I can look at historical examples of other people who have done the same thing and conclude that it is a bad idea.
I would also disagree that people who take action under the guise of pragmatism never have to admit their mistakes. If they take action and it does not work, then it is a mistake.
If our mission was the monitor a cease fire, how do we call that success when violence escalates and we have to change the mission?
It had to be changed...there was simply no way to conduct a successful humanitarian mission without securing the country. I don't think you can really argue that a mission was a success simply because the same element was including in each part.
If the humanitarian mission was a success, there would have been no need to change the mission. Therefore, the mission was changed (and ultimately led to failure) because of the inability to conduct a successful humanitarian mission.
I think that is just splitting hairs. For example:
If I draw up a plan that calls for X to occur, and then have to implement following plans calling for Y and Z in an effort to ensure X can continue to occur and the entire thing fails, I don't really think I can call X a success and say it was just Y and Z that failed, since X necessitated Y and Z.
I would think most people would look at those scenarios and think the moral decision would be to intervene.. Perhaps I simply assumed you would fall into that line of thought?
I view the reason we did not intervene in Darfur through the lens of American interests. It would not "work" (help American interests) to intervene, therefore it is pragmatic not to intervene.
What "works" is supposed to be advancing American interests. If there are no interests to advance by intervening, then not intervening is what works, regardless of the genocide on the ground. (as in the case of Darfur)
I don't think US intervention is the morally correct decision, I don't ultimately care what the morally correct decision is, I want intervention when it is pragmatic (ie when it "works" to advance American interests)
No.
We do get a return on investment in many cases.
Many US interests are shared by the rest of the world... I am interested in what you see the private sector doing however to enhance our diplomatic efforts?
In the example of Egypt, it was really the aid that got the treaty done. The treaty went a long way in advancing American interests. Without the aid, what else could have convinced Sadat to go along with it, when it ultimately led to his death?
I would argue that the existence of a futures market is due to the free market. Futures are ultimately just contracts between individuals to pay X amount for X commodity on X date. I find it hard to believe you would call for a government sanction elimination of such a system?
As opposed to using taxpayer funded carrots and sticks from other nations? Ultimately the United States foots most of the burden because we have the most to lose.
