Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "It is my belief that if you see someone being harmed, you have a moral obligation to try to help that person."
I agree, in general, but I have doubts about your extending this principle to a strategy that refers to falling bombs and hot steel as "help".
The problem here is the fantasy of infinite power. If we were a SuperPower, like SuperMan is a SuperHero, then we could make all these wonderful things happen. But this is not a comic strip, and we are not a SuperPower. We are a global power, nothing more.
Should I jump into the sea to rescue a drowning man? You think so? What about if I don't know how to swim?
We went into Vietnam with the same feeling of power. Vietnam was a dinky little nation with a shaky supply line to China and Russia. Surely it wouldn't be a problem for us to make them happy and wealthy capitalists. In the actual event, it turned out to be impossible for us to help them, and our actions cost huge numbers of lives on all sides.
The proper analogy for this is not pulling people from burning buildings, but instead something not as morally clear. The use of war to stop war is what is going on here, not rescuing people from fires.
Let's make an analogy here. When you and your husband broke into the apartment that was on fire, why didn't you help the drunk man by setting fire to his bed? That would have woken him up. And that guy who was stuck in a burning car, why didn't your dad rear-end him? Maybe that would have thrown the guy clear. What you're suggesting with an attack on Iraq is "fighting fire with fire", and your examples should show this. But instead, your examples show the use of something other than fire to fight fire. If we want to stop war, the most effective ways we have are economic, diplomatic and political. Using war to stop war is a last resort, not the first thing that a rescuer should try.
Re: "I thought the purpose of the UN was to allow us to help each other so things like Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan, don't happen while everybody just stands by, doing nothing, but it doesn't seem to see itself that way."
I guess there are multiple ways of interpreting the same document. Here's the United Nations Charter:
Charter of the United Nations
UN web site, as of October 7, 2002
We the peoples of the United Nations, determined
* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brough untold sorrow to mankind, and
...
un.org
-- Carl |
