Because we can't do everything, we should do nothing? I reject that on principle.
There are only several nations in the world that are truly genocidal. I will always support intervention in those nations, and I will always be ashamed when the US chooses to do nothing.
Unfortunately, we can't engage in several theaters at once. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we can't even fully engage in two theaters at once anymore. We have to choose which actions we will take, and unfortunately, we have to choose conflicts where other interests dovetail with the morally correct thing to do.
To criticize the US government because we have motivation that is indepenedent of morality is, in my opinion, a specious argument. No war is ever fought for one reason. It is fought over several reasons.
Which brings us back to evading the draft. Choosing a single reason to protest a war is intellectually dishonest. Using only that one reason, without balancing out all motivating factors, is either an act of ignorance, or cowardice. If you are drafted, you serve. Period. If you are a pacifist, you can serve in capacities that are not directly related to warfare.
I am opposed to the draft, but if it returns, it will return through a democratic process. A society can't function when its citizens pick and choose which laws they will obey.
Quote:
Originally posted by James
Russ, I think we get reproached becaue we tend to trot out the morality card when our interests are involved in other ways.
Its not like we make a systematic attempt to stop genocide. WE aren't making lists of countries that need to be intervened it. We use morality as a cover to go in for other reasons. Stopping genocide is a happy plus.
Now, I personally have no problem with us killing foreign people just to further American Interests, but I don't need things sugar coated like many seem to require. 
I think the use of a moral cloak is more dangerous because its misinformation.
|