Ah, you are going to make me work rather than type off oneliners.
Because Saddam's "weakened military capabilities" are strengthening to a level which is dangerous, and intolerable. If you could go back in time and stop Hitler, would you?
Hmmm, I'm not asking you for the evidence because I don't wish to get into a long back and forth on it, but the evidence to substantiate that claim is one of the things missing from the present debate. Let's get it, discuss it, in so far as it doesn't risk national security to do so. As a democracy, it's attendant on all of us to demand such a debate.
As for the Hitler comparison, that's comparison is simply not apt. The one that makes the most sense to me right now is Qadaffi (sp??)
One of earliest childhood memories is of my mother telling me about listening to the radio when the Soviets invaded (I believe) Hungary during an attempted revolution, and how the students were throwing bottles at the tanks and begging the US to come help them. It's a little vague in my mind but I was brought up to believe that we should help other nations who ask for our help. We should not just help Northern Europeans, we should be willing to help anyone who is fighting against repression.
I cannot and will not quarrel with the sentiments expressed there. I am old enough to have been terribly frustrated at the Eisenhower administration about Hungary in 56. But you may recall that administration argued at the time that going into Hungary risked a nuclear conflict with Russia. I have no idea whether that was true or not but it was an instance in which some thought was given to possible secondary consequences.
As for helping folk under repressive regimes, I'm also all for that. The problem with that argument is that it's apparently not the way American foreign policy works. There are precious few, if any, instances of the US doing so, several in which they helped repressive regimes resist attempts to overthrow them.
At any rate, the Bush folk offer the repressive regime argument well down the list of reasons. It's definitely not a big deal for them. If it were, the US would be rather occupied right now in a great many countries.
As for Lafayette and Pulaski, I'll take a pass.
As for the military being on board, I have no serious idea. There is, however, a great deal of debate in the media right now as to whether they are on board or not. I gather the debate is a very hot and heavy one and some members of the military top brass have been talking with the media about their opposition.
We're going to let people out, not keep them in. If they stay in, then it's their choice.
The point of the question that preceded your statement above is that much of the warfare is likely to be intensely urban, that a good many Iraqi civilians are likely to be killed in such warfare, and that much of the world will be appalled at that. It's hardly their choice that keeps them there.
After this one, as I read further into your responses, I think it best I simply take a pass.
It now looks to me as if you decided not to take the questions seriously. |
