Iraqs peace offer rejected was the front-page headline that caught my attention. The blaring question in my head was why? President Clinton had already approved a military attack when word of Saddam Husseins peace letter surfaced. The Iraqi letter was welcomed by France, Russia and China as the council began meeting late yesterday. The United States was the only member to reject it outright and Britain said it was skeptical, but keeping its options open. I believe that the United States action on this matter was not the good action.The U.S. did not do the right action because it violated two of the three conditions for good will, which are required for an action to be considered a right action. First, the maxim on which its action is based, being hostile action, cannot be universalized. For example, the maxim for this situation is Always take the hostile action. That is an idea that cannot be universalized because when used in a different situation it does not fit. For instance, if my mother kissed me, the hostile action would be to slap her, now why would I do that? This shows that the action taken by Clinton cannot be the right action because it is in violation of the condition of universality.Secondly, Clintons actions treat people as a means, not an end. He is using the people of Iraq as a means to get Saddam to comply with the United Nations demands. Clinton is using the threat of decimating cities, and destroying towns as a means to get the terms of the U.N. met. This shows how a second condition of good will is not met.Friedrich Nietzsche would support Clintons decision to reject peace and bomb Iraq because according to him, the will to power determines what is right. (Kessler, pp.96) According to Nietzsche Clinton sees himself as the origin of moral value in this situation. As a result, his decision is the not only the good decision but also the right decision because his will to power and to rule is what determ...
