"For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam"
If the above were true, that would make it necessary for the US to be engaged in wars world wide, against numerous dictators. It is simply not advisable to do that- plus you can't do it, except when the dictator in question happens to be very weak (because the US doesn't want to fight anyone really strong, now does it? Otherwise we would have saved the people of Tibet, but we didn't. Or the people of China, during the cultural revolution, but we didn't. Or the people of Russia, from the KGB, but we didn't (and let's face it, we couldn't. Have you any idea what numbers of dead are involved there? How about the number of dead in Iraq while we were friends with Saddam?).
War is not an answer to humanitarian crises, when war tends to MAKE humanitarian crises. If there is an invasion (a al WWII) war works pretty well to oppose such a thing. But war is not a very good solution. Although I guess to this administration, which only has the hammer of war, everything looks like a nail. |
