Michael J. Totten: Do Intentions Matter?

December 18, 2003

Do Intentions Matter?

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that no one in the Bush Administration cares a fig about the Iraqi people or the democratization of Iraq, and that the war was conducted for nefarious reasons. Yet good has come from the war nevertheless.

Does it matter? It's a tough question if it's taken seriously, and Norman Geras has a pretty good answer.

UPDATE: Tom Perry (aka Dipnut at Isntapundit) has a thoughtful answer, too. Go read.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at December 18, 2003 11:43 PM

Comments

Motives don't matter. If I messed up the polio vaccine and gave 10 million injections that killed 10 million kids I wouldn't feel any better because I'd done this with a pure heart. Pol Pot may well have believed he was creating a utopia from the ground up by necessary purification, rather than creating hell on earth. He meant well. And check the Spanish Inquisition. Maybe the torturers were all idealists. Some of the SS no doubt were.

The law of unintended consequences always, in the end, reigns supreme.

Maybe none of this replies to your concern.

Posted by: miklos rosza at December 19, 2003 12:50 AM

Miklos,

That addresses a different question, actually. What if a person intends to do bad but does good anyway?

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 19, 2003 01:03 AM

Thanks for drawing it to people's attention, Michael, but my friend Eve Garrard, who has started contributing the occasional post at normblog, gets the credit.

Posted by: Norman Geras at December 19, 2003 01:37 AM

Isn't it Marxist dogma to argue that the ends justify the means?

Posted by: yankinlondon at December 19, 2003 03:02 AM

I don't intend this as snark, but Norman Geras sounds an awful lot like Adam Smith in that blogpost. I can't remember exactly how it goes, but it reminds me of that bit about how the baker produces bread out of self-interest, not altruism.

Not that I want to carry the analogy too far - eventually we'd wind up in an unending debate over individual self-interest vs. national self-interest, externalities & free riders, etc. - but I do think that this is one of the reasons why the right and left seem to be talking past each other. The libertarian contingent that seems to dominate the warbloggers take it for granted that self-interested actions can lead to a greater good for all. The reasonable left can accept this, but are skeptical as to the distribution of the gains (justifiably, I might add), even if all parties do benefit. The loony left cry exploitation.

I originally wrote more about pareto-efficient outcomes and positive sum games, but you know it's bad when your own writing sets off your BS detector.

Posted by: Independant George at December 19, 2003 06:32 AM

In the very isolated situation you present, motives of course don't matter. In reality, of course, motivations, ends and means are a far more complex story. It is probably better to talk about the weight of various factors, positive and negative, in deciding whether and how to act. In other words, how do we measure benefits and costs (these reflecting "good" and "bad"). In conducting its foreign policy, the United States, and more generally the anglosphere nations and their partners, are increasingly placing a higher value on human rights among the 'benefits' of military intervention as well as considering human suffering as a 'cost' to be avoided. This has been obvious in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and now Iraq to the extent that the well-being of the Iraqi people was a factor in deciding the intervention in Iraq and, just as important, the manner in which it was conducted. The failure of people like Roger Normand and Shirin Ebadi to see the glass half-full, and quite obviously for reasons of political prejudice rather than on moral grounds, hardly serves the cause of human rights.

How one views the motivations of the U.S. administration remains a very important question while the U.S. is in the middle of the conflict in Iraq. This affects the confidence that the Iraqis can place in the U.S. to stand by their side.

Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at December 19, 2003 07:23 AM

One problem I have with "motives" debates is that they tend quickly degenerate into fairly sterile intellectual exercises that are not well-connected to the real world. The reason for this is that they generally don't take context into account. Bush, and U.S. foreign policy, for better or worse, occurs in the real world where certain things (like an immediate U.S. showdown with the Saudis that Dean keeps talking about) are simply not possible for economic or other reasons despite being desirable to do in theory. Similarly, U.S. and U.K. actions in Iraq have to be judged against the likely outcomes of following, say, the French and Russian approach to Saddam (i.e. let im slaughter Irais indefinitely so we can squeeze some cash out of him), not against some kind of Panglossian Best of All Possible Worlds. This is a critical idea that so many liberal criticas of the war (though not all of them) simply don't seem to grasp. Criticizng Bush is fine with me, but criticizing him in the absence of any larger context, including the other international actors and the brutal nature of Saddam's regime, is infantile and
maddening to try and disagree with.

Posted by: Daniel Calto at December 19, 2003 07:39 AM

I think Garrard makes a good point: George Bush's moral worth is different than the moral worth of the outcome. Of course, intentions matter a great deal to assessing Bush's moral worth. But they're meaningless for assessing the worth of the outcome. However meaningless debating Bush's moral worth may be as a philosophical question, it does, I think, have some important pragmatic implications for the long run ... but I'll get to that in a second.

I'm not, I guess predictably, completely with Garrard. He writes: "The possibility of the next action being wrong can't be a reason for refusing to support the current action if it's right." This statement needs to be expanded a bit. Hussein wasn't knocked off in a vaccum. The war had and continues to have consequences far more vast than Hussein's demise. It's had immediate consequences, such as the people killed by American bombs (thankfully, probably relatively few) and the ongoing battles with insurgents, and longer term consequences, such as the change in the international order and the weakening of the U.N.

Then there is the question of what the situation will be in Iraq in the future. In my opinion, the Iraqi people have only been liberated in part -- Hussein's regime is toast, but there's no functional Iraqi government. A foreign power, us, controls the country with an army of troops and civilian officials. I'm not complaining about this -- it has to be done and we're the best country in the world to do it, but let's face it: the battle is still going on. Iraqis do not yet have any guaranteed rights. They do not yet control their country. To depose one tyrant and leave with another one in place (no matter how pro-US he may be) is hardly a liberation I'd wish for.

Here's where I think Bush's intentions matter. The rhetoric is great, but the experience on the ground in Afghanistan and the planned troop reductions next spring are not. No matter what Rummy says, Afghan warlord Ismail Khan is not an "appealing person." If that's the kind of democracy we have planned for Iraq, our victory is terribly thin. If Bush didn't do this thing for the right reasons, he's not going to much care what happens when he wants to get out.

There are some very, very disturbing situations tangentially related to Iraq that I think convincingly sink the Bush ship. Most importantly, there's the 1800% increase (since 2001) in military aid to Uzbek dictator Islom Karimov (who imprisons, tortures, and kills political opponents). We wanted Uzbekistan with us in the coalition of the willing and paying him off worked. Frankly, if Bush cared one bit about human rights in Iraq, he would never have let this happen. But he met with Karimov and was all smiles, despite the thousands of political prisoners in Uzbekistan. Despite the torture, beatings, and murder.

Then there's Liberia. We could have prevented a lot of suffering with a very small contigent of troops ... but we didn't do it. And after Charles Taylor flew to Nigeria, we let the ball completely drop.

Hussein's gone. Should we have supported Bush's war for moral reasons? I can never support it the way its been done, without the international support, with the violation of aggreements built to protect world order, with the message it sends the Arab world, with the arrogance, the lack of forethought, and the scary hubris. I could have supported it, had it been done right.

That said, it happened, and we might as well make the goddamn best of it, which means more troops and money and a long, hard, and hopefully -- ultimately -- successful occupation.

Posted by: harry at December 19, 2003 07:42 AM

Remember when we talked about this at lunch, several months ago? I said intentions do matter, and that was why I was worried. I still believe that.

In yoga, you are taught to stay connected to your intentions. This isn't empty rhetoric. If you practice yoga to alleviate pain, and you lose sight of that intention, you may start focusing on how toned your arms are. Yeah, it's a good result, but you will eventually stop nurturing the original goal. And if you stop nurturing the original goal, the practice changes. This is not necessarily bad - it's all a journey and process. But it can be bad, especially if it does harm.

Apply this to Iraq. If the Bush administration says it intended to liberate, but really acted for nefarious purposes, then you must wonder: which goals and purposes will it continue to nurture in the long run? Will it stay connected to its stated intentions, or the intentions it hid from public view? In other words, if you don't care one lick about democratization, will you really nurture that goal, long after the bombs stop falling? I don't think so. Look at Afghanistan. But it's also possible that the intentions will change (as in my yoga example above).

Posted by: karrie at December 19, 2003 07:49 AM

PS: It's also important to recognize that people tend to nurture "hidden agendas" more strongly than the ones they put into public view. This is because it takes a lot of energy and commitment to keep them hidden. They get a lot of nurturing because of it. (Same reason why many cheaters think their affairs are more exciting than their marriage - they're just putting more time into it). Just another thing to consider.

Posted by: karrie at December 19, 2003 07:57 AM

Yet good has come from the war nevertheless.

Why don't we wait and see what Iraq's next government is like before deciding that?

If someone else starts up the torture chambers and rape rooms in a year or two, then even capturing Saddam will have gone to waste.

Posted by: Swopa at December 19, 2003 08:12 AM

Good answer, Karrie.

I don't personally think Bush has nefarious reasons for going to war in Iraq. In his book "Terror and Liberalism," Bush-hating leftist Paul Berman explained our goals in Iraq better than any Republican has explained it.

"Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others."

Our self-interest overlaps with the self-interest of Iraqis. So acting selfishly in our own interest in this case yields the same outcome as if we had acted solely in the interest of Iraqis.

This may not be morally pure, but it isn't something to be ashamed of. It's the way alliances are formed, after all. Most Iraqis understand this, and I think most Americans do too.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 19, 2003 09:06 AM

Throughout the comments here it seems pretty clear that there is actually agreement--intentions matter only to the extent that they have determined and will continue to determine actions.

The debate quickly turns to one about Bush's and the administration's intentions for the future, but again the concern is there because we're worried about what actions those intentions might generate.

Although I've done a near-180 (maybe 135) in how I feel about the war, and especially how I think the occupation should be conducted, it has always bothered me that many warbloggers have been immediate and unquestioning in their assumption that this war was fought only for the noblest intentions (and I happen to believe that self-defense is a reasonably noble intention, regardless of the actual state of the threat). I don't believe that that assumption alters in any way the moral quality of the actions we've taken so far; but the holders of this assumption tend to turn a blind eye (or become temporarily Kissingerian) when confonted with some of the truly less-than-noble actions this administration has taken. And that matters because they share their thoughts with others, and they vote.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at December 19, 2003 09:09 AM

Our self-interest overlaps with the self-interest of Iraqis. So acting selfishly in our own interest in this case yields the same outcome as if we had acted solely in the interest of Iraqis.

This is a good principle, but incomplete to explain our "good" actions. We also act in certain ways just because that's the way we are: We tend to avoid torturing people, or blowing up a lot of civilians in an area where we can further our aims by catching a few bad guys, killing or torturing Saddam Hussein. Why would we build infrastructure, schools, democratic institutions, etc. in Iraq differently than, say, Kosovo or Post-War Germany? To say that we have a raw strategic self-calculation that informs the totality of our actions in the way we promote our strategic interests is imprecise. It doesn't have to be either Gulf War I (strategic interest in oil supplies) or Kosovo (humanitarian concerns). Can't it be some of both?

Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at December 19, 2003 09:58 AM

harry, search Michael's site for some interesting information on Uzbekistan.

"It doesn't have to be either Gulf War I (strategic interest in oil supplies) or Kosovo (humanitarian concerns)."

It is some of both, but more than a few people I've run into seem to believe only one reason should count.

Posted by: linden at December 19, 2003 10:24 AM

Intentions only matter insofar as they show us likely outcomes. If, somehow, the Bush Administration manages to change massively and implement good policy in Iraq and elsewhere, but they're doing it for the absurd reason of, say, getting Jenna good grades as part of an elaborate bribe of her professors, I'm pretty much okay with that. It's the likelihood of people with bad intentions to handle complex situations according to their intentions rather than mine which is the concern.

Posted by: Kimmitt at December 19, 2003 10:25 AM

"Isn't it Marxist dogma to argue that the ends justify the means?"

It may be that the intentions of the Marxists allow for 'ends to justify the means'. The real issue with Marxism is that we have yet to see the proper ends met, and so the means have certainly not been justified.

Posted by: Glenn at December 19, 2003 10:55 AM

This story ought to indicate just why intentions can matter. When our leaders do stuff like this, we ought to have serious doubts about their qualifications for leading us in Iraq now.

Sickening.

Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents.

Posted by: harry at December 19, 2003 11:15 AM

I would argue that the situation of our engagement in Iraq is different than that described here today.

The basic argument was that Saddam's regime was a threat. The scale of the threat was big, in part, because of Iraq'a possession of WMD. The world believed the WMD bit, was less sure about the immenence of the threat. Oh, and by the way, Saddam was a miserable tyrant who murdered his opponents, women, and children.

So we went to war in Iraq out of self interest - that was our motivation. Now, as it turns out, the threat expectations were wrong, at least in terms of their imminence. Thus we went there on premises that turned out to be false. In the process we have freed a captive people, deposed a despotic international criminal, and in the long term have likely made ourselves more secure - despite what Howard Dean thinks.

We didn't go there out of some altruistic desire to free the people of Iraq, that turned out to be a happy consequence of our mistaken attempt to remove a short term threat to our security.

We were wrong in our motivation not because of our intentions but because of detailed tactical information and assumptions.

Posted by: steve at December 19, 2003 11:18 AM

Harry,

You're right about what happened in 1984. But that was a different era.

We also had a close relationship with Josef Stalin for a while, but that doesn't mean that post-WWII anti-Stalinism was any less genuine or necessary.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 19, 2003 11:28 AM

Michael, agreed: a different era. But unfortunately, the same man.

The point is moral and pragmatic. The moral is an empty observation, but the pragmatic is troubling. If the guy running the show in Iraq now hasn't demonstrated much concern for Iraqis in the past, why should we or, more importantly, the Iraqis trust him today.

What are the people of Iraq going to think? After all, earlier this month Rumsfeld was broadcasting a television message across the country. And it only takes this photo to make these words ("We will stay the course, and help you secure a future of freedom for your children - so that for them, Ba’athist terror will be not a daily reality, but rather a sad chapter in the history books they read in school.") sound awefully hollow to Iraqis.

Posted by: harry at December 19, 2003 11:39 AM

And this is what I'm driving at with all the Uzbekistan stuff. Taking out one by arming another is really just pretty darn stupid. People should be shouting, kicking, and writing about this...

Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archives, a Washington-based research center, said the secret support for Hussein offers a lesson for U.S. foreign relations in the post-Sept. 11 world.
"The dark corners of diplomacy deserve some scrutiny, and people working in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan deserve this kind of scrutiny, too, because the relations we're having with dictators today will produce Saddams tomorrow."
Again, if Rumsfeld doesn't have the moral guts to take a moral stand, well then it should be no surprise that he is happy to hang out with Karimov.

Posted by: harry at December 19, 2003 11:48 AM

Good point, Kimmitt, the “likely outcome” of duplicitous intentions/motivations leaving Saddam ruling his long-suffering country and a United Nations weakened and sterile in the view of the international community should be questioned. Maybe Howard Dean should take that up and encourage Old European elites to make a significant commitment to Iraq's future now, rather than assigning defeatist blame to arrogance and spiteful “unilateralism”. As Zebari has said "The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again" so intentions do matter.

Posted by: d-rod at December 19, 2003 11:49 AM

Harry,

Roosevelt called Stalin "Uncle Joe." If he had lived to see the end of World War II, I'm sure he would have stopped doing it. And I would understand and not hold it against him. It made sense to ally with Stalin for a while. It made less sense to ally with Saddam, but I do understand what Rumsfeld's intentions were. (We are talking about intentions, remember.) The intention was to side with who we thought was a lesser evil against a greater evil. Same as our World War II alliance with Stalin against Hitler.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 19, 2003 11:51 AM

But can anybody make the case that it's necessary to support Karimov?

Check out the Memory Hole's coverage, especially focus on the descriptions of torture. Do intentions matter? As predictors of action, yes. Can I vote for anybody who would cozy up to this man, for whatever reason? No. That eliminates a number of Democratic and Republican candidates, by the way.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at December 19, 2003 12:09 PM

Following up on Michael's comment, it should be noted that the U.S. distanced itself from Saddam's regime after the 1980's with far more alacrity than did France and Russia. Despite Bush senior's terrible abandonment of the Iraqis post Gulf War I, at least the U.S. and U.K. did enforce the no-fly zone and enabled the long-suffering Kurds to set up what is perhaps one of the most benign governments in the region despite its being far from perfect.

If we're playing the moral culpability card rhetorically it's important to note that France and Russia were even more involved with Saddam's regime and did very little to distance themselves from it at any point. Indeed, a single French bank was channeled the funds for the entire oil-for-places program throughout the 1990's--very lucrative indeed.

To say that because we once buddied up with Stalin or Saddam or Noriega, for that matter, that we are forever tainted by such an ill-considered alliance, and can never change our policy as a result, is a stupid point of view.

This kind of moral purity is a recipe for stasis
and continuation of whatever the status quo happens to be, no matter how horrible it really is--an apt description of Chirac's and Putin's approach in the lead-up to the Iraqi War. We can change out minds and we can make better choices than in the past.

Posted by: Daniel Calto at December 19, 2003 12:15 PM

Yeah, and I don't think anybody's really saying that--not here, that is.

We can change out minds and we can make better choices than in the past.

Which is exactly why we ought to be concerned about the administration's friendliness with Karimov. It appears that somehow, inconceivably, we still haven't learned our lesson.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at December 19, 2003 12:18 PM

It is not possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Posted by: dipnut at December 19, 2003 12:26 PM

Christopher,

I am not convinced about Karimov. We need his help in the region to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is our number one problem there.

Would it be better to tie our hands and let the problem fester? How is that morally superior or wise?

Mullah Omar would still be running Afghanistan if we didn't get help from Karimov and Musharraf. Osama bin Laden would still have his stronghold. We really only had two choices with Karimov and Musharraf. Cut deals or declare war.

We definitely didn't need to fight three countries at once, one of which is armed with nuclear weapons.

If you can think of a better alternative, I'd love to hear it.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 19, 2003 12:32 PM

...many warbloggers have been immediate and unquestioning in their assumption that this war was fought only for the noblest intentions...

Nice to see you again, Christopher. The post I linked above is for you.

I think I'm an exception to your warblogger rule. Cynical and self-serving, I am. I say it's not possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons; but I'll admit the possibility of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. We'll have some sleazy allies in this fight, little as we may like it.

(Don't take that as a defense of Kissinger. I don't know anything about him.)

Posted by: dipnut at December 19, 2003 12:33 PM

But can anybody make the case that it's necessary to support Karimov?

It may reassure you somewhat to know that the Administration is apparently not quite as supportive of Uzbekistan as you may think. These are still in the field of baby steps (I would - and have - argued for faster action on these lines), but it's not quite in neutral any more.

Moe

(Via Winds of Change, which did one of their briefings on the subject recently.)

Posted by: Moe Lane at December 19, 2003 12:33 PM

Well, it was a general regional survey, but you know what I mean. :)

Posted by: Moe Lane at December 19, 2003 12:34 PM

Daniel, I actually agree with you on that point. I'm arguing that Rumsfeld has proven himself to have a callous attitude toward human rights. As such, I'm not inclined to believe that he'll hold the line on democracy in Iraq if he wants a quick exist. That's something that speaks to both the humanitarian case for war and the prospects for the future.

Michael, I'm with you on Pakistan. It's a gross situation, but I doubt we had a choice. With Uzbekistan, I'm just disgusted. Look, there's no good reason for us to play footsie with this tyrant. There's no question he's transforming Uzbekistan into an autocracy. I understand our concerns with al Qaeda, but that means we get tough on Uzbekistan if they don't play our game. Their economy is in the dumpster and we have a lot of leverage. An 1800% increase in military aid and lots of snappy pictures with Bush, Powell, and Rummy is unconscionable.

As you quoted earlier: "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others."

We don't negotiate with terrorists and we shouldn't deal with tyrants.

Posted by: harry at December 19, 2003 12:49 PM

we shouldn't deal with tyrants.

Sometimes we have to. See Roosevelt and Stalin v. Hitler.

That is not to say that it's always the right thing to do. We had no excuse green-lighting Indonesia's takeover of East Timor, for example. As Christopher Hitchens put it, he had never read an argument that mass-murder in East Timor helped bring down the Berlin Wall.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 19, 2003 01:37 PM

Uh oh, one of the ends envisioned by the 'neocons' may be may be actualized.

good intentions? bad intentions? does it matter?

Posted by: Glenn at December 19, 2003 05:43 PM

Motives don't matter to the victims. They just want to be freed, liberated, etc. from their suffering. In their eyes, quibbling about "motives" is just masturbation.

Posted by: David at December 20, 2003 02:41 PM

Christopher:

A agree with you that nobody seems to be making that argument here, but it's repeated with very depressing regularity by opponents of the Bush administration, often by those with only a hint of the actual facts of, say, U.S. support for Iraq in the 1980's, and with nary a mention of Iran. That doesn't mean support of Saddam was right--I'd argue it certainly wasn't--but it was at least comprehensible in that specific context.

I also think Karimov's regime is a very nasty one, and that we should wiggle out of that particular shotgun wedding with as much haste as we can. Pakistan is a far more complicated and troubling case--stretching with anti-American resentment, unstable, nuclear, a threat to India and to the new government of Afghanistan, and a threat to the U.S. in the longer term. I think it's essential to play ball with Pakistan to some extent despite its

Posted by: Daniel Calto at December 20, 2003 03:00 PM

"seething" with American resentment, that is, though I guess OBL could do his yoga while wathcing the face of the Great Satan on Baluchistan TV or something....

Posted by: Daniel Calto at December 20, 2003 03:04 PM

Just a couple of observations:

1) As a psychologist, I often come up against the "either/or" concept of attributions. This means that there must be one "reason" a person did this or that. Generally speaking, to identify the attributional source of an action is far more complex, tends to be multifaceted, and is often at least partially unknown to even the person who is acting, let alone by another attempting to determine "why" somebody did this or that. Additionally, environmental forces also have a way of steering individuals in certain directions, the impact of which tends not to be immediately known. For example, consider the Bay of Pigs invasion. This blunder was green-lighted in part because Kennedy did not include any individuals in his primary discussions who argued against the invasion with any force, even as a devil's advocate. Had he done so, the flaws may have become apparent.

2) Given this, I also often discuss with client's that acting in one's self-interest does not automatically disqualify one from the "credit" earned by the secondary benefit provided to others by acting one's own best interest. As an example, if I ask who has benefitted more people ("helped more people," etc.), Bill Gates or Mother Theresea, people tend to knee-jerk respond that, of course, Mother Theresea has. In fact, I would argue that Bill Gates wins, and it is not even close. The science, the research, the improved education, etc. that the world has gained by having computers not only increase so much in potential, but in terms of mass use, far outweighs the good that Mother Theresea did. However, because Bill Gates also made billions from his efforts, we tend to discount any "benevolent credit" he should receive, unless, of course, he donated all of his profits to charity. (BTW, this is not to diminish the altruism of Mother Theresea, only to point out that one can make a profit and make the world a better place at the same time -- don't want to piss anyone off!)

Anyway, I don't normally port on this blog, though I do enjoy reading it, but this thread is just too interesting to pass up!

Posted by: Jerry at December 20, 2003 08:36 PM

In a purely phsychologic bent -- it's impossible to know anyone's motivations. The only judgement that can really be made is that a persons actions are in accordance to an inferred motive, whether stated by the individual or inferred by others. Good is done if good is done and not just thought about. If someone comes out with the cure for the cancer soley driven by their desire to win the Nobel Prize, who cares? They'd still get the prize and be hailed as a great/good person.

Secondly the comments about "the ends justifying the means" have nothing to do about the ends justifying the motives. Different arguement.

Posted by: Bill Bromberg at December 22, 2003 08:39 AM

If someone comes out with the cure for the cancer soley driven by their desire to win the Nobel Prize, who cares? They'd still get the prize and be hailed as a great/good person.

Right, but if they did it exclusively for the purpose of making huge stacks of money from it (for example), then their distribution of said cure might be different than if they did it just for fame or gratification.

Posted by: Kimmitt at December 24, 2003 12:51 PM

Kimmitt you're just grasping at meaningless straws...... LOL!! surprise surprise.

If you're being murdered and tortured and someone saves your life you ask, "Wait are you helping me because you are really concerned about me and my innermost feelings, before I accept your help"

Like the Japanese we recently discovered protected the jews in Shanghai because they believed the Protocols the Czars taught them and thus believed the Jews were a powerful people they should want to do business with and benefit from their powers, though carefully. DAM THOSE JAPS THEY DIDN'T REALLY LIKE NECESSARILY THE JEWS THEY PROTECTED FROM REPEATED NAZI REQUESTS TO KILL, BUT THEY DID IT ANYWAY!! DAM JAPS.....

And I'm sure if any countries helped out the Jews more so during WWII by bombing the tracks for instance, but it turned out they were anti-semitic like most of Europe was anyway, we'd have to connote this mark on them saving lives. Kind of like the way we now know that Harry Truman was surprise surprise somewhat bigoted in his thoughts for Jews and Blacks, he grew up in the South, but his actions speak 10x louder than even the great Jewish hero, Roosevelt! Black and Jewish historians both say that he did more for both than any other President by miles..........

I'm also sure that Lyndon Johnson was an extremly pro-semitic kind of guy while helping Israel out so much. I'm also sure he had many black friends, and even many over for dinner often, I bet he even would have invited many to his local golf club (LOL!) and what did he do for blacks and Civil Rights again?

The what was your intention argument is so pathetic and specious that it really makes one aware of just how desperate places like the Guardian are now to grasp at any possible straw they can. Like noting how "poorly" Saddam was treated and whether or not over and over CNN Int'l discusses whether or not he should get the death penaly or be tried in an International Court while giving Saddam's daughter a full and emotional platform to speak of her great fallen father....... WAIT I NEED TO UPCHUCK NOW.......

Any nation's actions are never done for only purley charitable reasons, does anyone need that fing explained to them yet? Nations think like Generals, they should examine all facets of any decision, all possible outcomes on either side of the fence and how they play into the global political sphere. We just gave billions to Africa, was that for purely ideological reasons?

What a pathetic desperate lot the Guardian/Independent lot all are now....... EATING THE SHIT FROM THE NEOCONS SHOES.
HOW DOES IT TASTE? You might want a little juice to help swallow it.

Posted by: Mike at December 24, 2003 08:50 PM

Posted by: Milf at January 20, 2004 03:41 AM

Nothing's far when one wants to get there.

Posted by: Welch Tom at January 21, 2004 05:02 PM

Hello guys, i have to say this.. My boyfriend has tried some penis enlargement pills and he's a new person since than.The confidence..., the courage! i love it and i love you... i love the world

Posted by: penis enlargement pills at March 4, 2004 09:44 AM

Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.

Posted by: GrubbRobinson Josh at March 17, 2004 05:51 PM

Describing is not knowing.

Posted by: Jed Reinitz at May 3, 2004 12:30 AM

John Bradford, Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins

Posted by: Tenzer Heather at May 20, 2004 02:31 AM

The other day I was looking for some
texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker, poker.

Posted by: Maya at June 1, 2004 01:15 PM

You have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours..

http://weight-loss-programs.bcure.com/
http://puppies.healz.com/
http://rheumatoid-arthritis-treatment.bcure.com/

Posted by: Ruby at June 1, 2004 09:48 PM

There's nothing to gain and nothing to lose.

Posted by: Quintal Anne at June 2, 2004 08:55 PM

Posted by: anna at June 6, 2004 09:08 AM

Hmmmmm interesting

zapraszamy po czadowe gry java na gry java, po dzwonki polifoniczne do dzwonki
polifoniczne oraz po komputery laptopy notebooki
tanie laptopy.

You can find the best nokia ringtones and logo at nokia ringtone, get the best melodies for your
nokia mobile phone and get cool nokia logo at nokia logo and backgrounds now http://www.nokia-ringtone-logo.com

!!! Posted by: dzwonki at June 17, 2004 01:30 AM

Asian Pleasures
Back Seat Banger
Big Cock Sex
Do Porn Stars
Fucked for Free
His first Gay sex
Internet Hookups Sex pictures
Inthevip sample video
mature xrotica
muscle men xxx
Porno Ground
Porn Stud Search sex pictures
sport erotica
SuperMarket Whores
WeLivetogether
Xxx Supersize