Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World
Yes.
I don't disagree, one would assume however that "dieing" would not be an "American interest."
I don't agree that pragmatism inherently means whatever the most people believe is true. Just because a lot of people believe something does not mean that it "works" in that manner.
I also don't agree that fallibilism means whatever becomes the consensus becomes "true." Fallibilism just means that what we "know" might be mistaken.
It is not pragmatic because it didn't actually "work", unless you want to make the bogus argument that it was a success because it created a large problem later.
That makes it no less a bogus claim. Ultimately the humanitarian mission was part of the political/military mission, and it all ended in failure.
If the UN can make all the distinctions they want, but ultimately we failed.
Not so. Intervening in Darfur would not advance any American interests, and therefore is not pragmatic.
In Darfur we are not "risking failure", there are simply no interests to pursue through intervention.
In terms of Darfur, I don't think there are any American interests to advance... In terms of other interests they vary from area to area, so it just depends.
Not all countries share our interests in every scenario. The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is a good example I think.. and one in which we needed outside alternatives to get it done.
Unless you are prepared to restrict trade when nations do not go along with us then this point is meaningless....
In many cases, those incentives are what make it in the best interests of both nations.
So you would argue the the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty could have been obtained without any incentives for Egypt?
A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. Futures markets are at their core contracts between private individuals.
In many cases, we do get incentives for entering into agreements.
