Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
You misapprehend "morality". You would stay out of Rwanda, watch the slaughter, and, as long as you had the votes, call yourself "moral"?
I'm hoping I've just read your post wrong.
|
I do not relish the loss of Reagan; he was in many ways a great leader, and is most admirable for having stuck by his convictions.
Nonetheless, he is not someone to hold up as an example of action in the face of moral reprehension (as no one in the position of President can).
He did not act in Tibet, while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in Angola, while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in Afganistan (at least overtly), while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in North Korea, while millions were slaughtered.
And that's just the Communists that I can think of off the top of my head. Other examples might include Iran, Iraq and Honduras. And I suppose it would be rude to bring up pandering to the apartheid government of South Africa in the name of regional stability. Or was that morally correct?
I'm not sure that he should have acted in any of the cases above. But if one is to take an absolutist stance that we as America are obligated to protect the people of other countries from their leaders (a stance that, if the US had the resources to undertake, I would support), then it is difficult to argue the other way.
May he rest in peace.
