Ronn, just very very briefly. The embargo of goods to Iraq is and isn't a UN run operation. Every year the UN votea against it and declares it unlawful. Every year the US uses its veto via the security council to completely ignore that and carry on. So whilst the UN is acually conducting the embargo the UN doesn't support the embargo. Confusing, and frankly worrying.
But yeah, this thread was about morality in political leadership. It got round to the US specifically as we were talking about the morality of American foreign policy. The US is a prime example of how there are at least two ways of measuring success and/or morality. The actions of the US, or the American government and political ruling class, are extremely successful as far as they themselves are concerned. As far as the rest of the country is concerned they are less succesful. So are they in any way morally based? It is an extremely difficult question to answer. What is morality and by what grounds do we measure it.
We could say that a morally good action is one that is based on good intentions, by which the US foreign policy is often morally good from the point of view of the US citizens. But you could also say that a morally good action is one that results in a good outcome, which leaves many more actions debatable at best. But even then the definition of a good action is left open. Good from who's point of view? This questions is such a bitch because pretty much all the terms contained in it are undefined, or at least debatable in their definition. If I got this for a politics essay I would jump for joy - you can argue three points of view at once without contradicting yourself. Fun!
