I respond once to the suggestion that the US had no right to assume the moral high ground when negotiating Iraq (and other) policy in the UN because of it's past actions both in the region and around the world, by saying.



How important is historical perspective to present-day moral consideration of policy?

What role do the "sins of the fathers" have to play in foreign policy discourse?

I agree with that on the national level, but not for individual policymakers with a suspect past on the issue they're in charge of. The sins of the individual should be visited on those individuals. I actually don't have anyone in mind (I'll leave that for someone in a mood to do research to back it up), but I think one's past actions in previous administrations should be a factor in current credibility, while not an absolute bar.

I agree entirely. I believe that is where most of the US-Iraq comparisons fall apart. (The US used WMD, aided Saddam etc etc) by all means hold individuals accountable for their actions, we must stop doing this with nations (like the French)