If a US military strike against the government of the countries that intervened could have stopped the escalation of the killing, would it have been justified because it would have saved lives?
Or condemned as American aggression against poor African states? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Claims that any military intervention is supposed to promote democracy and human rights are going to ring hollow - extremely hollow - if there's still so much lower-hanging fruit around in the democracy promotion department. It'd look much like shooting a burglar and claiming that you did it because you're "concerned about your safety" - when you haven't even bothered to install a lock on your door in the first place. Not credible.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
And I don't agree with the counterfactual either. A few air strikes here and there are not going to stop a few million people ready to kill each other with machetes and most foreign combatants in Congo came from neighbouring countries, on foot (so to speak). When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
