--- maru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In answer to your question Gautam, overthrowing > Saddam's government > could be morally wrong because it was as gross a > violation of Iraq's > soveirgnty as could be found. Also, it violates the > people's moral > right to choose their own government- nowhere have I > heard a formulation > which goes 'the people have the right to choose > their own government, > and overthrow one which is completely unacceptable. > Unless, of course, some > outsiders think that the current government is > reprehensible and > deserves to be overthrown, and do it on the people's > behalf.' > And perhaps the Europeans are protesting the > Ukrainian thing (if indeed > they are. I have yet to hear of it.) because the > pro-democracy groups > which are supported by the US seem to be tilting > against the pro-russian > candidate and towards the pro-western candidate. > The Europeans are > obviously > trying to counterweight the US, and what better way > than to attack its > chosen candidate? Not that the US meddling in > elections for its own > gain is > unprecedented of course. > ~Maru
OK, then you're elevating state sovereignty to a remarkably high moral principle. There are plenty of people who believe that - it's not an illegitimate position. I don't happen to, but I respect it. In that case, though, how do you feel about Yugoslavia, where we were grossly violating its soveriegnty on many occassions? More than that, why attach such moral importance to the sovereignty of a totalitarian dictatorship? I don't care about the violations of the sovereignty of, say, Nazi Germany in 1945, for obvious reasons. Second, I don't understand what you mean about the right to choose their own government. I think we can say with confidence that the people of Iraq did not _choose_ Saddam Hussein. The whole point of the war is to try to give them the chance to choose their own government, exactly the way we did in Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Grenada, Panama, and Afghanistan. OK, so the Europeans are trying to counterweight the US. _That's my point_. When states try to do that, they are not your friend. Another word for states that try to weaken your state is "enemy." Or adversary, at least. Finally, it's true that the US has interfered in elections in the past. Not very often, but it has done it. It _should not_ have done that. But why are you bringing it up? What do previous misdeeds on the part of American governments have to do with the choice of some on the European left to oppose democracy right now? At least in the case of the US it was doing it within the context of the Cold War - which does not excuse, but does mitigate, the act. Unless you want to elevate balancing against the United States to the same moral level as defeating Communism, how is opposing democracy in the Ukraine in any way comparable? ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
