From: Ellen K. 

Thanks for an excellent post.

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:44:54 -0400, "William F. Zachmann"
 wrote in message :

>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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."
>
>All the best,
>
>will
>
>
>
>"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
>news:3e9140d9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> "Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
>> news:im919v08n2h6l7be425epftp6iintgc7u2{at}4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:57:30 +0100, "Adam Flinton"
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> > >&? Why is the average US citizen that more morally
superior to the
>> average
>> > >Iranian? heck the US supported the Shah & his secret
police etc up to
>the
>> > >hilt. I don't recall Iran supporting a similar figure in the US.
>> > >
>> > I said nothing about comparing individual citizens of the US vs
>> > citizens of Iran.  I do think our government is morally superior to
>> > Iran's.  As to supporting the Shah, that was perceived to be in our
>> > interest at the time, just as we were allied with Stalin for a brief
>> > period.
>> >
>>
>> Fine so your gov is sooooo morally superior that it will support people
>like
>> the Shah & his secret police etc. Hey didn't it support the
coup in Chile
>&
>> the death squads in large parts of latin america.....& indeed terrorists
>> (out of power death squads??) in various part of latin America (e.g. the
>> "contras")?
>>
>> > >Iran ain't Iraq. There is an internal battle going on
between the vast
>> > >majority (given the recent voting records) & the
"guardians of the
>> islamic
>> > >revolution". The guardians will crack in part
because most of the
>senior
>> > >shia clerics are coming out more & more firmly in favour of the
>> > >democratically elected elements (parliament/president)
having the main
>> power
>> > >over & above the self appointed clerics.
>> > >
>> > Oh, I agree.  Iran will probably not require direct intervention.  I'm
>> > more concerned about the DPRK.
>> >
>>
>> Leave that to the Chinese/South Koreans/Russians. Or get badly burnt. They
>> want you to get involved. So don't.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>

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