--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious about the accusation of racism and > bigotry. If 'not fighting to free Iraqis' is > racist, > then what is ignoring the torture and killings going > on in Sudan and Zimbabwe? Is there justification > for > calling intervention in the Balkans but not Rwanda a > racist policy? > > If the argument is that the Balkans and Iraq are > economically and strategically important to the US, > but Africa is not, could that be interpreted as > racist? > > <<5] Presumption - arrogance is expected in anyone > > who excels, but to > > dismiss all who do not hold your views as > > weak-minded or stupid is excessive.>> > > Thread Crossover Maru
I don't think "not fighting to free Iraqis" is racist. That's a legitimate position - it's not one I happen to agree with but hey, there you go. But what I saw in the protests wasn't that - it was a lot of people arguing that the people of Iraq don't want to be free. That Arabs don't want to live in a democracy - that's always a good one. Now that is. As to your second question - no, I don't think so. There's a quick rule-of-thumb test I use for the morality of American foreign policy. It's not the be all and end all - it's a first order approximation. 1. Is this in the American national interest? 2. Is this action also good for the average people of the countries involved? If yes on both, then you're good to go. If yes on the 2nd and no on the first, then I think you're a lot more limited, but that's not illegitimate. We can't do _everything_. That's impossible. Given that, it isn't just moral to limit your actions to those that are also good for the United States, I would argue that it is actually immoral to do otherwise, because there is a moral obligation upon the government of the United States to pursue the interests of the US - and the same for other countries, of course. My objections to (in this case) the morality of French and German actions is twofold - first, I think that they are misunderstanding their interests, but second, and equally important, they are clearly uninterested in what is good for the people of Iraq. The logical consequence of their position is to leave Saddam Hussein in power - the worst of all possible outcomes for the people of Iraq - and this doesn't seem to concern them at all. That's why I believe that what they are doing is not only unwise, it's immoral. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
