:You see, I disagree with you here just as I do with Red Deathy. I don't believe that blanket moral statements can be made about US foreign policy. I believe that some of our actiosn have been morally right, others have been just as clearly wrong. And I believe it does make a difference who is in power; it's not just "teh irredeemable system". Carter's foreign policy was deeply moral; Reagan, operating udner the same "System", chose a foreign policy that was deeply immoral. Leaders and their individual choices do matter.I agree- its not about moral statements, I make no moral judgement of teh specific actions- I simply think that even the 'good' teh US does is illegitimate.
Lets look at it this way- I was drinking with a freind of mine, Jordanian bloke, just after King Hussein died- the bloke told me what a good king Hussein was- deeply moral, kind, generous (funding hospitals out of his own pocket), always called people sir, never pulled rank (except apparently once, on his death bed, a nurse told him to stop smoking, he turned round and said "look, I am a King, you are a nurse, who the ehll are you to tell me what to do?"- apparently his familly burst into tears, he had *never* done that before). He talked peace (it was his only option), and allowed limitted democracy.
Nevertheless, he also expelled the Palestinians, launched wars against Israel, Khalid (my mate)'s uncle was someone high up in the Secret Police- political rights were almost non-existant.
At teh end of teh day- Hussein was a King, and whatever a nice bloke he was, he did what was necessary for his national interest. he may have been moral, he may have been good and kind, but he was a King- would you live iunder a King? Even a good one? Isn't America king- the President is 'the leader of the free world', but I don't elect him, I cannot control (nor can you) his actions, you may get a good king, or a bad king, but at the end of the day, the instution is rotten.
None.
