See, this kind of hypocrisy just unwinds me!! Did you support the war in the Persian Gulf to "free the people of Kuwait"? That was a really, really big stretch to your self-defense argument, IMO. Strategically important, yes, but self-defense, hardly.
If some one attacked you, and I intervened it you could argue that it is not self defense but it is morally equivilent. Yes the people of Kuwait are not really free in the sense that we have freedom in the US, but they are more free then they where under military occupation, and the majority of Kuwaiti citizens would rather have their current situation then to be under Saddam's thumb.
This kind of looks like something other than a democratic republic, but heck, what do I know?
So no country should ever have protection against forign invation if they don't have a democratic government?
When you see Iraqi's with tumors the size of cantaloupes growing on their shoulders, backs and legs, it kind of looks bad for us.
A lot of Iraqi's died but most of the deaths from the war were among Iraqi soldiers. Its unfortunate that they had to die, many of them did not want to be in the army, or to fight the superior US and allied forces, but I don't think that we should abstain from defending or liberating other contries because we might have to kill some of the invading soldiers to do it. The deaths among civilians were mainly caused by the bad economic conditions in Iraq, which the sanctions have some of the blaim for, but the sanctions are a seperate issue then the war itself. I'm not sure what you mena by the mention of the tumors. The Iraqi civilans that were killed directly by the war would have been killed by explosive blasts not nuclear radiation, or chemical weapon attacks.
Tim |
