Mullahs for Bush!

Remove all ads!

I think it goes way beyond "not being strange", it's an essential job requirement. It is the duty of the president to look after American interests first. If he looked after another nation before looking at America, he would be failing in his duties. Come to think of it, I can't envision a scenario where ANY leader of ANY country would look after another country at the expense of his/her own.

 

Well... Blair is doing a good job of turning the UK into Bush's little lap dog. Forget our interests....

 

Well, sorry, Pac Man that I misunderstood what you were saying. But something is certainly wrong when almost all the rest of the world wants to see the leader of your country gone.

 

Of course Bush is looking out for US interests. He'd be even more derelict in his duties if he didn't. The issue I see here is one of general hypocrisy, and it applies to pretty much every developed nation. We claim to have moral authority and condemn those who act in an unethical (to us) manner. Yet we can always find a reason not to do something that wouldn't be in our interest, despite it being the "right thing" to do. No developed country is exempt from that criticism, no matter how sanctimonious they want to be.

If you don't believe me, then consider these:

1. Why, if we know that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were of Saudi descent, didn't the Bush administration lean on Saudi Arabia for an explanation?

2. Why, if we knew where the train lines to Dachau, Auschwitz and Birkenau were, and what they were being used for, did the Allies not bomb the bejesus out of them once a week or twice a month from 1944 onward after air superiority had been achieved and the tracks were within range?

3. Why did it take Australia 30 years to pluck up enough courage to oppose Indonesia on the annexation (and independence) of East Timor, given that most developed nations condemned Indonesia's actions while we endorsed it?

Maybe I'm just too jaded, but the only case I can think of where the West hasn't had some sort of ulterior motive for intervention was Kosovo... and even that's open to conjecture. Yes, we pump out billions in foreign aid - much of which then gets distributed by the corrupt governments and officials that are running developing countries into the ground. In the end, it's a palliative for our consciences, especially when you look at trade. A policy of self-interest is not only based on precedent, it's quite defensible; that is, until you decide that you have the moral ascendancy and become a hypocrite.

Sorry, got a bit off-topic there...

Same thing here with John Howard and the Liberal Party. I can't remember any other (nominal) Head of State being called what Latham called Howard a couple of years back.