Skip to main content

View Diary: Witnessing Revolution Liveblog #150 (318 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's no "doesn't apply to the US" escape (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JustJennifer

    clause in the convention.  But I'll rephrase:

    If no county other than the US is willing to intervene on humanitarian grounds, e.g., to enforce the convention against genocide, or at least is unwilling to intervene without the participation of the US, is your opposition to US intervention so strong that, however, reluctantly, you would view allowing the genocide to take place or go unpunished to be the lesser evil?

    •  Maybe the US shld strike Burma first (0+ / 0-)

      Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

      by LaurenMonica on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 02:24:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe. But . . . (0+ / 0-)

        if you're serious, then you've changed your mind about the principle of the U.S. engaging in international humanitarian intervention.

        Burma also presents certain problems, including, the absence of a UNSC resolution.  "Striking" Burma would be more like invading Iraq.  Were you ok with that?

        Another problem is that, involved as the US is in two ongoing wars, its military and political capacity is limited.  That's why US participation in Libyan efforts is likely to be limited to supporting others.

        As I say, however, if you're serious about Burma, then you've entered into a discussion of practicalities and priorities, and have abandoned principled opposition to international humanitarian intervention.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site