The sanctions on Iraq are another. In fact, they strengthen his regime against internal threats and they clearly impede the cause of disarming Iraq. This isn't serving anyone's interests, not even ours. Unfortunately, the requirements of civilization, of being a civilized nation, often seem to be directly at odds with the requirements of empire. Civilization requires that one not recklessly inflict massive damage on other countries, that one not use the implied threat of military aggression to impose one's will, and that one recognize one's faults.
Civilization implies the attempt to deal with others as if they have the same rights that one does.
In a less benighted age, one less steeped in the dogmas of free market fundamentalism, civilization might even have entailed compassion for the less fortunate. One hundred years ago, Mark Twain said that we could not expect to maintain a democracy at home while building an empire abroad. In an age when being a multimillionaire or having several hundred friends who are seems to be a requisite for being president, when a single person can decide whether we go to war or not, while half the population feels that whether or not they vote makes no difference, it seems rather a prescient statement. The question we are faced with in this new world order is whether we can simultaneously maintain our humanity and our empire. The answer requires a single look at an Iraqi infant dying of kwashiorkor, which exists in Iraq solely due to our policies.