Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That may have been your topic, but that's not what I was talking about. The original topic was the success of containment in dealing with the threat posed by Hussein to us (i.e., WMD), not the threat he posed to his own people, but you have dropped that one like a hot rock.
|
I mentioned thousands of children dying each month and suggested that I favored the use of force in Iraq to put a stop to the killing fields and the horrific sanctions which were not, in my mind, working based on my definition of “working.” You chose to respond and said “our tactics in Iraq -- aimed at force protection -- have resulted in more "collateral damage." I do not believe civilian war casualties have exceeded the number of dead children I mentioned. So I fail to see your point.
Quote:
|
I'm not opposed to acting out of humanitarian concerns, but I think the ultimate end of our foreign policy should be national security. I usually have this discussion with bleeding-heart lefties, so it's something of a shock to hear this sort of earnestness from the right.Does anyone disagree that Hussein was a bad man? No. The world is full of them. Robert Mugabe, for example, has been starving his own people for years. Unfortunately, there are real limits to our ability to effect social change in other parts of the world. The question is rarely, how bad are things, but, what can we do about them?
|
Whatever. Shit or get off the pot, Ty. If our administration had said they were going in based on humanitarian reasons would you support it? Or will you take the weasel-ly approach and whine how the administration DIDN’T use this as the reason for going in and therefore it doesn’t matter. It matters to me. Would you or would you not have supported the war to end human rights abuses and the devastating effects of the sanctions?
