You didn't give a very clear answer. I think from what I read this is what you said. "If we have the forces available, and there is no negative backlash (I take that to mean casualties or creating terrorist against us), you would intervene." In other words, if it doesn't cost too much, intervene. Correct me if I am wrong about your answer. >Slavery is a custom in the Sudan, is this ok with me?< Nope. We can call this "evil" as well. But here is my point... I'm not willing to commit American forces to intervene in another nation, unless its in the interests of national security. The reason I am unwillinging to commit American forces for any lesser reason, is that once they are committed, the goal is to achieve the objective, regardless of the cost. You don't commit men to die for lesser reasons.

>But here is my point... I'm not willing to commit American forces to intervene in another nation, unless its in the interests of national security. The reason I am unwillinging to commit American forces for any lesser reason, is that once they are committed, the goal is to achieve the objective, regardless of the cost. You don't commit men to die for lesser reasons.< I'm inclined to agree with this position, but then we open the can on the question "Is the United States making ethical national security choices?" On a case-by-case basis, the ethical system (if there is one involved at all) isn't exactly universally applied. Even the French "have no allies, only interests." One thing is for sure. The war on terrorism is as much an imposition of a superior ethical system on the world as it is an American national security interest.

"You didn't give a very clear answer" Sometimes there aren't any clear ones. That's when we have to do some conscience searching, ethical evaluation, and see what comes out. Philosophers have been working on this for thousands of years, and the best we can do is keep working. The Question of whether Inaction carries the same Ethical Responsibility as Action is an old one, and it has never been resolved. You expect me to figure it out? I am deeply flattered.

Thanks for giving an answer. I may not agree with everything you say, but I respect the fact you can state your position. >Is the United States making ethical national security choices?< You're right. And what it comes down to, is that the American people have to trust the judgement of thier leadership. After all, they are privy to information we are not. That why when they lie to us, its a betrayel and they need to pay. War on Terrorism is to remove the threat to the US and her citizens. Any talk about "imposition of a superior ethical system on the world" has nothing to do with American security. Thats Pax Americana, aka Imperialism. My oath to the Armed Forces of the United States and my oath as an officer in that force doesn't say anything about imperialism. If American wants to conquer the world, say so. I'm sure that if the recruiting fell short because American citizens won't die for that belief, we can recruit enough non-citzens with promises so we could conquer the world.

>"You didn't give a very clear answer" Sometimes there aren't any clear ones. ... I am deeply flattered.< Don't be. It was a very simple question and I even gave you my answer to it. Still no answer from you. Maybe I'm being harsh. Maybe not. In the old days, we used to call people like you REMFs. You'd talk the talk, but made sure it was someone else who did the bleeding. It'd be alot easier in the future if you just said "blaaah blaaaah" and rang the bell around your neck.

You goofed, Shaka, twice. First, you said this: "Correct me if I am wrong about your answer." Which I gather means you at least think I have an answer, even if you don't like it. Then you said: "Still no answer from you." Huh? Didn't my answer count? Is it not clear enough for you? You want a clear answer, give me the courtesy of a clear question, listing every cost, benefit, and consequence involved. There are no issues that make for cookie cutter answers here. Automatic answers belong in religions. And your second goof: "In the old days, we used to call people like you REMFs." No, you didn't. You really didn't. NOW you can call me that. And happily so, for 13 years, as I have openly admitted. We can't all be riflemen and scouts- somebody's got to fix the buildings. As I've also admitted, I've never had the experience of actually shooting at someone, but I was there to do so, and I owe at least some of my good fortune to Kim Il Sung's reluctance to throw his nation into a war they really couldn't win. But you are right about something: "but made sure it was someone else who did the bleeding." Beleive me, if the balloon had gone up, I would have done everything in my power to assure that the maximum amount of bleeding was done by the nK's and not me. (You remember what Patton said.) So yeah, you're harsh, which I'll let slide because it ordinarily isn't like you, and leave you to ponder things. If you don't like my answers, that isn't my problem. I can sum it up for you" Cases like you gave me, to me, must be considered on a very individual basis, very carefully. Give me a case and I will consider it for you, don't expect a blanket one size fits all answer, that just doesn't work for me. Consider your own answer as well. What is "National Interest". Is it only the direct protection of citizens and their assets? Is there ever anything else? Since you do beleive that there is evil out there, what makes it right to use force to prevent Evil being inflicted upon an American but not a Korean, Dane, or Liberian? Do you believe the strong have any ethical responsibility whatsoever to protect the weak? Where I live, the only difference between "American" and "Foreigner" is a certificate signed by a judge. I know a few families that are split- citizens married to non-citizens. It may be easy to visualize blond, blued eyed Wisconsins as "Americans" but around here, both Americans and Non Americans are in shades of brown and speak shades of English. Is that one little signature from a Judge really the border line between "person worth defending with my life" and "person I don't give a rat's behind about"? Blah blah- sorry, but I can't make all the judgement calls go away- life is full of fuzzy uncertainties. maybe I've taken one class in Ethics too many. It's a funny little irony, though, I had no real interest in Ethics before one certain Brigade S-3 (And if he's out there he'll now know precisely who I am, I mean was) told me something. We were talking about college majors. I had majored in Geography. Tactically useful, and the Army was my life at the time. He said he had majored in Humanities. I said something young and stupid about that not being a really useful line of study, considering our current job descriptions. He said "someone has to know the value of what we destroy.", and he said with the conviction of someone who beleived. I've been fascinated with the study of philosphy and ethics ever since. I'm sorry if its all just blah blah to you, but please understand I can understabnd your point perfectly. Every time someone tries to explain to me how this computer works it sounds like blah blah to me, they might as well not even try.

I think we're in basic agreement here, Shaka. But talk of the war on terrorism being American imperialism is rather premature. What I mean by "imposition of a superior ethical system" is that we are forcing the international community to recognize that terrorism is a threat to the social fabric of all nations. Much of the world doesn't care when other nation's people die, but terrorist attacks are pretty much black and white moral clarifiers - Russia and Milosevic's Serbia leading the way in showing how not to respond to them, and yet we understand that their responses are linked to the police states that spawned them and strive to fight a war that at least attempts to spare the innocents.

Maybe I was harsh. If so, my mistake and I'm sorry. But to me it was a very simple question that you didn't give the answer to. "Would you commit the military forces of the US to action against another nation because they were practising female circumcision?" To me that is a easy question. Cause if you say yes, and are willing to have one American die for that, then in my opinion you are wrong. Its not worth it. >Since you do beleive that there is evil out there, what makes it right to use force to prevent Evil being inflicted upon an American but not a Korean, Dane, or Liberian? Do you believe the strong have any ethical responsibility whatsoever to protect the weak?< Now you have just given a question that I can't give a simple answer to. Yes, I do believe the strong have a ethical responsiblity to protect the weak. But that doesn't mean America should protect the "weak" of the world. Not enough Americans and too many weak. Its not that I don't care about non-Americans. Part of the responsbility of being an American citizen means that you have an obiligation to other Americans, even if you don't personally like them. How else could an American citizen, of minority persuasion, live with himself after losing friends whom his nation doesn't consider equal to others in that nation? It bothers me to no end, that North Koreans are starving to death. But should American invade to right that wrong? No. Should we support the South Koreans if they decided to do so? Now you've got me in a tricky place. Thats why I believe the best solution is for the Chinese to do the invasion of North Korea. I admire the passion that Clinton had for trying to fix some of the evils in the world. But once you start down that path, who do you help and who don't you? And eventually you run out of troops. Even worse, you get "mission creep", until one day you realize that while you may have killed 5,000 of thiers, they've killed 18 (13?) of yours. Then the quesitiong about doing the right thing starts and pulling out looks like the best choice. The whole thing about who should be righitng the "evil" in the world is a different topic. Individuals want to right the wrongs, then go out there and do it. But its not a choice I believe any President can make for us. Because when he makes those choices, Americans in the military die. And the American military is not there to right the evils of the world.

>What I mean by "imposition of a superior ethical system" is that we are forcing the international community to recognize that terrorism is a threat to the social fabric of all nations.< I'll give you my first response. "You've got to be kidding?" Are your seriously saying that America is trying to make the world understand that terrorism is a threat? Many, many years ago, when France was under terrorist attacks, where was America then? There were threats to blow up the Effiel Tower, airplanes were hijackaed, French commando stormed aircraft, etc. They weren't the only one. No one cares about terrorists until they kill your own. Then its a major problem. As far as responding to them, I'll leave that alone, since thats where we have a major difference of opinion.