| Re: Note 299.0 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN
Hi Steve,
Some good questions you ask!
My own opinion about our intervention in Panama is that we had good
enough justification (barely) to do what we did, and that it was proper
to do so, for the following reasons:
1) The United States has some very direct interests in Panama, not the
least of which is the Panama Canal, which we built, and the treaty that
we have with them concerning it. Noriega could no longer be trusted to
honor the treaty.
2) The elections in Panama last Spring were closely monitored by many
countries, but Noriega suppressed the official results, threw out the
elections, and eventually had himself installed as the supreme leader,
or some such arrogant title.
3) In recent days, prior to the invasion, Noriega's thugs attacked and
killed a US serviceman. This was the straw that broke the camels back.
Had this not happened, it would have been tough to justify the
invasion. But once US military personnel were attacked by government
forces, then I think we had little choice.
4) Also in recent days, prior to the invasion, Panama declared war on
the US. This also was reason enough for an invasion, given the
importance of the canal to the US and to the world.
5) The fact that Noriega was wanted for indictments in the US is a
minor factor, but not enough alone to justify the invasion.
In short, Noriega gave the US every reason to invade, and did nothing
to prevent this inevitable course of action.
How about the reactions of other countries? Well, I don't blame
them for their public condemnation for our actions. They don't want
to encourage the US to go galavanting around the world invading
more countries. On the other hand, I really believe that most of
them are glad we did it in this case, and that they will respect
the US for doing it. To let Noriega kill our soldiers and then to
ignore it would have sent exactly the wrong message. The real test
for the world will be to see if we withdraw as soon as possible
from Panama.
As far as Romania goes, it might have saved a lot of lives to have
invaded, but I don't think there was enough justification for any
country to have done it. This was a revolution by the people, perhaps
like our own American Revolution. It had to be worked out by them. I
think it would have been appropriate to support and help them, but not
for us or NATO or anyone else that I can think of to take matters
directly into our hands.
> Now the real question, what of China?
So far, this falls into the category of the Chinese needing to work
this out on their own. I would support the US providing assistance to a
revolutionary movement, but not a direct invasion.
Rich
|
| re: .0
Happy New Year Steve!
I took a vacation from the files. Have been up to my neck in reading
and researching material. However I'd like to respond to you comments.
> One of the criticisms I heard on PBS radio from Europe suggested that
> the U.S. should not have intervened but allowed the Panamanian people
> to rise up against the tyranny as was being done in Rumania, in spite of
> the difference in number of lives lost. The report indicated that
> many felt that though nations were united in condemnation of the U.S.,
> secretly they supported our actions.
That seems to be typical of world opinion, not necessarily directed at
ourselves as a country. For one country to sanction another's "police
actions", would, I believe, give santion to any country's desire to invade
another country to protect it's "interests"
> All of this brings to light moral codes of government. Was the U.S.
> correct in invading Panama?
In as much for the protection of US citizens, military, and assets, yes.
To overthrow a despotic dictator, no. No more than the USSR had the right
to invade Afghanistan, or for us to be involved in Vietnam, etc.
> Was the saving of thousands of lives and
> bringing to pass the will of the people (setting up a new government
> with officials as had been elected by the people but ignored by the
> tyranny) justification for invasion?
Tough question. Where do we draw the line? We believe in self deter-
mination and for freely elected governments, however, we must realise
that our system of government, is not the only one, nor do we
have the right to impose it upon the rest of the world. If a people
desire it, yet, are thwarted by a ruthless power from above, do we
take a stand. It comes down to the sovereignty of each government
and whether it is recognised by others, and I'm not so sure rather
being recognised by others is of utmost importance.
> If so, is it morally correct for
> other nations to openly condemn such action, but privately encourage it?
Ah, morals! we apply our own standards of conduct to others,
but would be offended if others applied theirs to us. I'm just trying
to turn it around and be in another government's, or culture's shoes.
> What of Rumania? Would it have been morally correct for, for example,
> NATO to invade Rumania and set up a government more along the desires
> of the will of the people? If successful, many lives might have been
> saved, I assume.
I don't think it would be, unless "they", meaning the people, asked for
it. What if they were not able to ask? Then, I would ask: what are the
costs, and paybacks? I don't like talking like this...just being realistic.
The "costs" of invading Grenada and Libya, were small, as compared to,
say, Lebanon. What are the costs of invading Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
the Ukraine, etc. If these people cried out to the west for help in
overthrowing their oppressors, are we under a moral obligation to do
so, perhaps yes, based on our values and morals. However, to do so,
violates the sovereignty of the USSR. We wouldn't want them to violate
our sovereignty, would we.
> Now the real question, what of China? How do the answers to the above
> indicate nations should respond to things there? Is our country
> handling things correctly from a moral point of view? What should our
> moral position as citizens be regarding the relations we have secretly
> maintained with the tyranny in China?
Again, we don't have the right to intervene, regardless of the moral
implications. An analogy, Steve. I don't drink. I despise drinking.
I think that the my state is wrong morally, in encouraging the consum-
tion of alcohol, by having retail outlets (Maine). Same thing for
Lotteries. I decide that I'm not taking any more of my state's
immoral attitude toward these things. I find others with my point of
view and garner enough support to eliminate them. We pick a time
when all the stores are empty and blow all of them up. One might
disagree with my methods, but Alcohol consumption is WRONG.
Was I justified? What were the costs? Any rewards? What about the
D & C section on upholding laws of governments
Now the tail side of the coin. The American Revolution. I call it
the rich man's war. We overthrew a sovereign government. Was it right?
What were the costs and rewards? Freedom? were we really oppressed?
When is overthrowing a government "right" When our individual freedoms
are violated? When 50.00001% of or people have their rights violated?
> Thought this might be of interest to noters to discuss. I don't expect
> many clear answers. But, I feel that if we can think these things out,
> we can come up with positions that are at least self-consistent with
> our beliefs. Have at ...
> Steve
Just wanted to get into the swing of discussion again. I believe
that there is a point where moral beliefs do apply. Where do
we reach that point, though? Another area. Does the church
santion civil disobedience. Say the US govt. was overturned
and a dictatorship took over. What would the LDS position be?
Kevin
|
| Howdy, Kevin!
Lessee, now if a dictator had taken over the US government ...
Hmmm. I suppose it would boil down to whether or not this dictatorship
was going to allow taxation with representation and freedom of
religion. Both of these are causes that I would fight for. But, I
think it would be a personal decision. The Church would probably not
encourage open rebellion. If the dictatorship were suddenly in place I
would thus endure, prayerfully until I was either killed for exercising
my religion or until an opportunity for change came about. If that
opportunity came about, I would probably leap at it. Which may help
explain why it was that the changes in Europe happened so suddenly.
One other observation, I note that the nations of the world have
unitedly condemned the actions of the US. But, they have all declined
to allow Noriega to enter their borders, let alone push for the US to
put Noriega back into power. In other words, they all condemn what the
US did, but seem to like the results. They seem to have no inclination to
encourage any "repenting" as far as action is concerned. As far as I
can tell, they condemn not what was done but who did it. Perhaps if
the military personnel had all become Panamanian citizens before going
in? (Sorry, I couldn't resist. Hope I didn't offend.)
Steve
|
|
re: .4
Steve,
I like the remark about citizenship papers of the *host* country you're
invading! Since now Noriega is in US custody, I suppose all of
us armchair analysts will try to decide whether the end justified the
means. Whatever. What I tried to draw out in the preceding note was
that we need to observe the same standards in our actions toward other
countries, that we are promoting.
Charles,
As for NATO, I believe that we should attempt to observe our
committments with other nations. I was concerned the 'Nam line
would invoke a reaction in somebody, and was reluctant to include it.
However, in my mind, there might have been valid reasons in looking back,
to refuse to help them, given the type of corrupt regime that was
present at that time. By today's prevailing attitude, I doubt that
we would go in to help.
Kevin
|