--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > Acyually,
<LOL> I had to finish the message before the library closed, and obviously didn't check for spelling! >the comment was more about the one-sided > presentation of the > > US as the cowboy in the white hat - hence the "OK > Corral" ref in my sig. :) > > And it sounds like fuzzy thinking, as I said. If you > were arguing that > opposing Saddam, by force if necessary, is wrong, > then I can see a > rational argument, although I doubt I would agree. > > But you seem to be saying that, since the US is not > perfect, they can't > possibly be doing the right thing now. No, I said: "Well and good; although the "leading" part is perceived by much of the world as bullying (which was one of my complaints back in the summer) rather than coalition-building." [Powell excepted] In order to rebuild/reform a post-war Iraq, it will take both manpower and money; if there is a large international coalition, then a UN-sanctioned military action will mean that others will help supply those needs (the US will probably still bear the lion's share - although according to the article JDG posted last week about Afghanistan, *Japan* had pledged more money than the US for 2003). Acting without such a consensus is less likely to garner physical support from all but our very closest allies. > I guess that you may have meant to argue that Bush > and Co. should not be > so smug and arrogant as they oppose Saddam. If > that's what you meant, > then I will agree, although it doesn't seem like a > high priority thing to worry about at this time. <grimace> It isn't just about Saddam, but the publicly arrogant attitude towards most of the rest of the world; it shows a lack of practical foresight as well as 'moral smugness.' From a utilitarian standpoint, one ought to do what will get one's objectives, short- and long-term, accomplished efficiently. Publicly acting the bully, especially in regions where "face" is so important, instead of politely twisting arms 'under the table,' is counterproductive. The goodwill towards the US after 9/11 was worldwide - I remember seeing *Iranian* people who had made street shrines for the tragedy; much if not most of that goodwill has since shriveled under the glare of overweening arrogance. That is not how goals that require international cooperation are reached. Now the US can't even bribe Turkey to support all its needs (although of course that may change - maybe they're just holding out for more, or maybe their populace is so angry at the US' heavy-handedness that their government is worried about armed revolt). The OK Corral ref is quite applicable from the standpoint that while the Clanton gang (?) deserved to be 'taken out,' the Earps/Holliday weren't particulary moral, although they were "the law" and got the job done. Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
