Tuesday, September 30, 2003

I'm really a closet neocon: To the contrary, I was 100% behind the invasion of Iraq on moral terms. Meaning, for me, that kind of call is a no-brainer. In fact, I saw no other compelling reason for us to do it. I did see many reasons why the U.N. should have done it, beyond moral imperatives - the fact that Iraq gave the U.N. the finger on so many of its resolutions. However, the U.N. did nothing because it is a do-nothing body. Shame on Kofi, et al.

I agree that things are done every day by governments because they are "right". I also agree that the premise, whether "right," "national security," or "other" can be used as a premise for essentially any action. But at least when couched under "national security" tenets, one strives to establish a threat to our people, our property, or our way of life. When you do it because it's morally right, you do it because you feel someone else is not doing what you, yourself, would do. It is as if we are imposing our Constitution on other nations. This then becomes more and more slippery. Perhaps we should overthrow Mugabe because he is unilaterally displacing white property owners on the flimsy premise that the land "rightfully" belongs to black Africans. Certainly, his actions are reprehensible, to our way of thinking. So, then what means would justify ending that course of action?

No comments: