From: "Adam Flinton" 


"William F. Zachmann"  wrote
in message news:3e91d2ef{at}w3.nls.net...
> Adam,
>
> For whatever it's worth, my own view is that .trying to characterize the
US
> (or Britain or any other nation) as inherently more (or less)
"moral" than
> any other nation in the abstract is pretty much a waste of energy.  As I
see
> it, a much more relevant issue is the relative morality (or not) of
> particular governments' actions in particular situations.  US support for
> the Shah of Iran was clearly based upon considerations of expediency and
> self-interest, not morality.  It was, to put it as kindly as I can,
counter
> to morality.
>

Quite. My point exactly. Power is amoral. Bullets are amoral. Dollars are amoral.

> The current action against Saddam Hussein certainly has elements of
> expediency and self-interest, but I think genuine elements of morality as
> well.  To condemn action against this quite obvious bad guy on the grounds
> that the US has not consistently opposed other bad guys rather misses an
> important point:  opposing a real bad guy represents at least a temporary
> improvement in the US(/Brit) position over, say, the prior position of
> supporting the Shah of Iran.
>

My problem is that I think we were lied to. The real reason was to take
a/the major arab country & introduce it to democracy is a sort of
"democracy domino effect" + the added bonus of separating Iran
from Syria (for Israel's benefit). The fact that the US/UK could because of
the invasion of Iraq (& his inability to accept reality & live up
to the agreements he made) was why it has happened. I think the WMD thing
was a canard. I fully support getting rid of Saddam coz he's (hopefully
soon he was) a homicidal nutter who has done some appalling things to his
own, to Iranians, to Kuwaitis etc. It is noticeable that he has had in
reality no real friends whatsoever. Syria has been semi-friendly due to (a)
Baathism & (b) "Who's next". But behind that Sadaam hated the
Syrains for taking part in the 91 operation & they know that.


> To my thinking, though, a far greater and more immediately relevant rap
> against the morality of a prior US position is the willingness of Bush I
to
> stand by and allow Saddam Hussein's regime to decimate the Shi'ah Iraqi's
> who rose up against him a decade ago.  That a clearly immoral action (or,
> rather, inaction) on the part of the US (and, of course, others), based
> wholly upon expediency and self interest in the belief (albeit wrongly
> based) that a crippled Saddam Hussein regime still provided a useful
offset
> to any potential threat from Iran.
>

The whole thing from the moment the shooting stopped in 91 was a f*ckup.
They shouldn't have stopped till they'd wiped the Republican gaurd no
matter how nasty the road from Kuwait to basrah looked. They should have
helped with serious airpower (not ground troops) wrt the uprizings. But
they didn't.


> Bush II and his crew have taken, it seems to me, a significantly MORE
> principled and moral position than that of any of the post-WWII
> administrations in Washington.  Same goes for Tony Blair in London.  To my
> thinking, that is a step to be applauded and encouraged.  Of course, it
> remains to be seen just how consistently they will maintain that position,
> but I see no reason necessarily to assume the worst (as their critics do).
> Still, "trust in God, by tie your camel."
>

There is now the matter of Israel/Palestine. After all Bush'es
"forthrightness" & "plain speaking" etc.etc. the
whole arab world is watching to see if the US "superpower" goes
"oh we couldn't possibly force sharon to do anything he doesn't want
to....."

If that happens...then even a democratic Iraq can/will be anti-israeli.
This will feed into anti-americanism. The Arabs are right now waiting for
the next US betrayal. If Bush goes "look it's the 1967 borders get
used to it sharon & what's more I will use every political tool at my
disposal to achieve this (inc putting the mil into the West Bank/Gaza as a
replacement for the IDF while the Israelis (inc settlers) pull out)"
as he did with Iraq then Arabs will believe him.

If it's a "oh Sharon doesn't like this bit about pulling out of the
west bank so it's no go" then (a) things will get tricky in Iraq for
the local US forces/ people on the ground & (b) possibly throughout the
Arab world. I could see now that Saddam is going/gone that the Arabs will
feel there is no need for US forces in the Middle East. If there is an
ability on the part of Israel to stop the US then those calls will become
deafening & you will see the US leave Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi &
possibly even Iraq.

Adam




Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4