Replies

Your post raises some interesting points.

First off, I am as shocked, horrified, and genuinely sorrowful about the slaughters going on (not just in Africa...) as anyone can be without being present on the scene, or without having relatives who are victims. Please understand that, or at least take my word for it.

Our prosecution of the "liberation" of Iraq rested on two separate but related facts: 1) Iraq had financed and sponsored acts of terrorism against the USA; 2) Iraq's possession of WMD's constituted a 'clear and present danger' to the USA because they COULD be used against civilians in this country. Under commonly-accepted moral laws, these facts gave us the justification for prosecuting a war (under all the OTHER moral restrictions applicable.)

As you can deduce from the above, the United States had clear national interests (primarily self-defense) in Iraq's regime-change.

George Washington, TJefferson, BFranklin, and hundreds of other American statesmen have made it clear that the ONLY foreign-affairs mission of the USA is the national interest of the USA. It is fair to say that other US Presidents have ignored this dictum at their peril. (E.G., the presumption that Vietnam's fall would permanently harm the interests of the USA...)

There's the foundation.

Now as to the Just War: in an aphoristic definition which is accurate, Chesterton stated that 'the ONLY just war is a war of defense.'

The conflagrations in Africa simply do NOT rise to the level of harming the National Interests of the USA. Nor can we commence warfare in Africa under any possible stretch of the "just war" theory--a moral necessity.

There is NO justification for US involvement.

On the other hand, there IS, UNQUESTIONABLY, a justification for UN involvement. The UN should establish order, at the point of arms, if necessary.

Call Kofi Annan and wake him up.

Is my argument legitimate? I completely understand that the US cannot be the world's police force. But it is so frustrating to sit back and watch as so many human beings are brutalized. What is to happen if nobody ever does anything about it? I know that the US and Britain went to Iraq in the name of national security. But I see that the biggest potential reward will be for the Iraqi people. The evil blood that escaped could very well start somewhere else, which could bring the national threat back. The way I see it, at least somebody did something, regardless of the reasons. Are people like myself to continually hope that a nation becomes a threat so that the people can finally be helped? I have had such an intense education lately in exactly how useless the UN is. How can there be hope for the people who truly honestly need help, from a group of people that include members from countries that are brutal. If the group that is responsible for helping doesn't care, what good are they? Maybe I am bothered by the human suffering too much. Seems that having your back turned and your eyes closed to the pain and suffering is the world's answer to these problems. All I can say is, thank god that at least the Iraqi people will now have a chance. Of course it is now up to them to be forever diligent in keeping their country safe from evil.