Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!shelby!bu.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!linc.cis.upenn.edu!hardt
From: hardt@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Dan Hardt)
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace
Subject: Re: Peace?
Message-ID: <37827@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 91 21:53:12 GMT
References: <58120@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <2247@njitgw.njit.edu> <10211@ncar.ucar.edu> <1991Feb7.181854.26365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <10271@ncar.ucar.edu>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: hardt@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Dan Hardt)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 18

In article <10271@ncar.ucar.edu> strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>  Suppose we had entered into that episode and done the right thing. Does that
>  mean that you personally would approve of the US' actions now? I doubt it,
>  so the whole issue of what we did and didn't do in the past doesn't affect
>  your current political views. It's a red herring/strawman.

This is a common point of view among war supporters, which I don't think
makes much sense.  The avowed U.S. argument is that we went to war based
on some general principles about violations of sovreignty, democratic principles,
etc.  The argument against this is not just that the U.S. has we been
_inconsisent_ about going to war to avenge such violations -- it would
be crazy to think that we should go to war whenever we judge that 
some country violates these principles.  The point is, our policy
hasn't followed such a simple (and brutal) principle, and it never will.
The government just uses it to avoid a serious discussion of whether
we should be at war or not.

dan