Art,
The argument that we're there to stop genocide simply doesn't ring true, for if it did, we'd be bombing places in Africa, and probably bombing Moscow and Beijing as well. It seems we practice selective indignation where genocide is concerned.
Your side might get more respect if they were honest and said something instead like, "we're involved in Yugoslavia not because of the genocide, but for the sake of security, as stability in that region is much more important to us than it is in Chechnya, Mongolia, Rwanda, or Cambodia, etc."
The genocide argument simply rings hollow.
Now, once your side comes to admit that this is a matter of security and not morals, would you also be willing to admit that perhaps the methods used thus far in attaining security might have produced - in the words of an engineer - "sub-optimal results?"
FWIW
Andy |
