John Nall wrote:

> I have been reading some articles (heavy reading) which assert that the
> U.S. can no longer provide moral guidance to the rest of  the world
> after Iraq.  These articles say that after World War II, because the
> U.S. had never gotten into colonization, and seemed to think in terms of
> democracy and self-government, that it was looked to as a moral beacon,
> continuing on through WW II, and presumably on up to Iraq, at which
> point enough lies were told (I'm just saying what these articles say,
> now, so don't flame the messenger!) so that  the U.S. no longer is
> looked at for moral guidance in an uncertain world.

Not sure what you've been reading. I've lived both in and out of the US
during that period, and when out of the US, both in a "rich" country and in
a less rich one.

I don't think many have looked to the USA for /moral/ guidance. At least I
didn't get to know them :)  

But especially after the crumbling of the USSR's empire, there was a hope
that the USA would use its /leadership/ (that's something quite different
from moral guidance) to further international order, help create some sort
of international rule of law. All who hoped for that got of course
seriously disappointed -- not only did they not further it, but became one
of its major distractors.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist