Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Tibet? NK? I was speaking of the possible - that we could go into Iraq, or Rwanda, and beat their little pissant armies easily and save millions of lives. These two examples of yours would have us starting WWIII with China. Slightly different calculus.
Afghanistan? He sent tons of arms there to fight off the Soviets. The moral decision in that case was the evil of the "to each according to his pull" system of death.
And, Angola? Basically, same thing, with less intervention. Ask the Portugese what they thought of getting wiped out of there by the incoming Cubans/Russians. UNITA was Angola's last best hope of staying free. (Yes, I define "free" as meaning that the regular people get to help chose their own fate, through democratic participation - not much hope of that under the MPLA.
|
So it's only moral if it's (relatively) easy?
All I'm saying, and Atticus's original point was, I think, is that one of Reagan's problems (and also one of his strengths) was that he felt a great conviction for the absolute moral authority with which he governed. This is problematic for two reasons.
First, it leads to problems when he's sited as an example to be followed when there are failures to intervene in areas where an absolute morality seems to dictate that we should have. If you don't have the resources to fix everything, you have to make choices, and this is difficult to reconcile with absolute morality. Bush I left Saddam in power, and shouldn't have (but did at least weaken him considerably, and returned Kuwait to the Kuwaitis). Clinton allowed attrocities in Rwanda, and shouldn't have (but did intervene in other areas [Yugoslavia, Somolia]).
The second problem (and Atticus's point, if I may speak for him) is that it leads one to believe one is above the law. I have no doubt that those responsible for selling arms to Iran and then diverting the proceeds to support the Contras believe that they acted with absolute moral authority. This disturbs me, because by doing so that acted in direct contravention not just to general laws, but specific laws drawn to specifically prohibit such actions. It apparently disturbs many Republicans less.
