Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Rwanda was a sovereign nation too. Under your reasoning, it would be morally unsupportable for a nation to invade Rwanda as the government ordered the slaughter of its own people. And why you say? Because the Rwanda government's proclamation that all members of the minority group, the Tutsi's, must be raped and slaughtered (to the point where the citizens were so exhausted from using their machetes they'd chop the achilles tendons of their victims and then leave them to cry all night while they went and slept and came back in the morning to finish chopping at them) is simply "behavior that is not in accordance with our standards". I wonder how this little guy, one of the survivors who has to take a rest from the food line, feels about your cultural relativism?
|
You do love the provocative pictures, don't you? However, on a moral basis, what gives us, as one sovereign nation, the right to kill one group of Rwandans in order to prevent the killing of another group of Rwandans?
See, I'm not the one who has a problem with moral relativism. It was Club's question, dealing with Iraq, and dealing with it on a purely moral basis, that I was responding to. Your post helps point out, from the other side, the problem I was highlighting. There are no moral absolutes. And everything is relative.
I agree that we should have done something in Rwanda. And Mozambique, and the Congo, and Sudan, and Chad, etc. However, as I've pointed out before, we don't have the money or the manpower to be the world's policeman. And the only way to really solve the problem is to become the world's emperor.
Which creates all kinds of moral, political, economic, and social problems that I don't have the solution to. But neither does Club. And nor does George Bush. He just has the cowboy attitude to talk large, act first, and dump the bills on our children.
Threaded Mode