>
>When the left cheered the overthrow of various dictators with the support
>of
>the Soviet Union, was that also "white mans burden" messing with the
>"natives"?
What exactly are you thinking of? Nicaragua? That was a homegrown insurgency. Somoza was overthrown without Soviet help. The Sandinistas were in part sustained by Soviet help, but like the Cubans, also sustained by Soviet help, they got rid of their dictator on their own. I can't think of a single case where the USSR helped overthrow a western-friendly dictator.
Hell, Saddam is a product of support from both the Soviet Union
>and Europe (and the US) depending on who could help him most at various
>times.
So?
>
>I'm not in favor of invading Iraq, but it's not because of some idea that
>would violate the democratic rights of Iraqis to self-determination. When
>South Africa bowed to the end of Apartheid, partly because of outside trade
>sanctions, I think that was a wonderful and justified violation of
>self-determination.
No, it was a way of promoting the self-determination of the black majority.
>
>What would replace Saddam is highly relevant to the morality of any
>military
>or economic intervention.
Quite true.
The point is right that lack of
>military invasion is not always better than non-military pressure.
>
If you mean sanctions, yes. But turning the US loose is never a good idea, hasn't been since after WWII.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com