I'm more inclined to dispair. Utopia would be so nice to achieve. Many of the features of the perfect world of have come into existence over the last hundred years, but basic human characteristics remains little changed. We've "solved" some of the classical problems, and spawned others.
I doubt that we will ever abolish war, or poverty, or injustice. I suppose I am an optimist, because I think it is worth continuing the fight for progress, for universal acceptance of Enlightenment values.
And this slamming of Iraq is fighting for progress? and for enlightenment? How do you figure?
You know, there is a sense in which I think Asherman is right.
That is, I think sticking our noses in other folks countries can be justified, and the sorts of uglies which have gone on in Iraq (though I frankly don't believe all I hear, knowing demonization is in progress) are cause for intervention. In other words, militarily supported intervention for humanitarian reasons I hold to be justifiable. War for economic reasons I do NOT consider justifiable.
Unfortunately, I also think that this adminstration is lying through its teeth about why this war has been engaged, and human misery is way down the list of reasons.
Blatham - true. I haven't much care what the US military does to Saddam, I'm saying I disagree with the concept of raining bombs on major cities. One reporter I heard on npr said that he saw no building in Baghdad that wasn't on fire.
I support our troops in that I truly hope and pray for their safetyand swift return home.
I do not support their endeavor.
I do not support the war.
Many feel the same way but have been brow beaten into tying support of the troops and support of the war together.
Others are purposefully ignorant, or just outright liars if they cannot separate the two. It is not a difficult concept.
I agree with Bi-Polar... am grateful for that clarification.
I don't think pre-emptive strikes could ever be justified because of humanitarian concerns EXCEPT in the form of an intervention undertaken by the international community, and I don't mean the "coalition of the willing." That's what has to be worked through the UN. The US has used that "kill you to save you" excuse more than once now...
Tartarin
Yes, of course, such could (should) never be done unilaterally, but only under the auspices of an international body. At some point, even in the context of Bush gone from office, folks will have to re-tool the design of the UN. It would be a job for some heroic intellects, but the world has them.
Now that the UN has been in use for so long I don't think the world can do without such an organization. Of course it needs reform. But it should survive in one form or other.
It would have to reinvent a similar organization, indeed.
i found the remark on enlightenment values very thought provoking. 'continuation to fight for the values of enlightenment so that they are accepted universally' (as somebody posted above) - that's a tough one. i myself do hold those values sacred and universally applicable, but alas! not all cultures around the world believe in universalism. i do not support the cultural relativism claims, claims that there are multiple morals and they are culture or civilization-bound, i believe that there are certain things, certain rights that should be recognized for every human being simply on the basis of being human - life, dignity, equality,.... BUT, i also recognize the right to differ in opinion and if large groups of people refuse the 'enlightenment' ideas, than who gives us (the west, i suppose) the right to force them on anyone? therefore i believe we can only present them and engage in dispute and dialogue and if there are people from those other civilizations who do accept it, then fine. if not, also fine - they are not forcing islam, confucianism, tao or any other value system upon us. i wish we could, as a humankind agree on some truly universal declaration (the UN UDHR was signed by most states, but not the islamic countries), but that may be again my western wishful thinking at play... <off to sleep on it>
Bi-Polar makes an important distinction.
Edgar -- So many talk about the UN as though it were an organization separate from its membership. But the reform required is precisely the reform of the membership -- laggard members like the US, tinpot dictators who try to use it for their own purposes (including, now, Bush), a useful but sidelined bureaucracy which struggles to keep up with the fantasies and fears of the members... A few years ago when I seemed to be on every committee in my neighborhood, I noticed that committee membership often precluded actual work. The committee was there to DESCRIBE what needed to be done, not to actually DO it. It's what I call the "Men Working" sign syndrome: You put up a sign on a bad patch of highway reading "Caution: Men Working" and then walk away, as though the sign were doing the work.
There's that other UN problem, too: the group of fanatics in this country who believe the UN is taking over our federal park system, plans to run the world. This saves them from noticing the more complicated problem of who is really taking over the world: we are... in partnership with multinational corporations.
I am aware that the UN can only be as successful as the members allow it to be. Still, I believe that a version of it must survive and be built on from here on.
Edgar -- Of course I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm a big fan of the UN and don't expect it to be perfect. I think one of the major problems it's had to put up with has been the political capriciousness and arrogance of our very own country which has used any pretext to demonize it.
Taratin
Your comments on committtees really struck home.
I served on a half-dozen township commissions and boards -- and they mostly were composed of people who simply wanted their name on various rosters.
I was a doer -- and remain a doer.
If I may, I simply want to declare my support for the United Nations. I think George Bush is pissing on that institution right now -- but I think our congress has been complicit in the damage.
I think the United Nations will survive -- and I hope its member nations figures out a way to keep our zeal under control. Nothing more dangerous than a bouncer trying to stop an argument that is brewing -- by starting the punching and shoving himself!
I do know, from a wonderful interview on Bill Moyers last week, that a fundamental issue of UN process presently being considered (at serious levels) is the impediment to compromise and democratic agreement by the veto power. And I think that is exactly correct. But we will need to first of all change the US position on this matter...no easy task at any time, but it is possible the recent debacle will present this idea to the attention of more Americans who would previously have thought it a bad idea.
NY TIMES Editorial
Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy
By EDWARD C. LUCK
The eerie whine of precision-guided missiles over Baghdad contrasts with the equally shrill but increasingly muddled debate over the legality of the conflict. The trans-Atlantic war of words has laid bare competing visions of the purpose of the United Nations Security Council. Was the council meant just to pass judgment on the use of force — or to organize its collective use? Given the imbalance of power between the United States and the rest of the world, should it embrace American military might — or seek to constrain it?
Unless these contradictions are reconciled, the council will be relegated to dealing with local crises, as in East Timor and Sierra Leone. The United Nations will retain operational roles in peacekeeping, mediation, humanitarian relief, human rights, development and nation-building. But if lesser powers contrive to turn the council into a forum for counterbalancing American power with votes, words and public appeals, they will further erode its legitimacy and credibility. Given the experience of the League of Nations, the architects of the United Nations were determined to bind American power and global decision-making, not to set them at odds.
Continued at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/opinion/22LUCK.html?th
I agree about the veto issue. I wonder if the US would give it up.
