The US is now positioned that Saddam is a ruthless and brutal dictator. I agree with that analysis. However, I'm also aware that this has not been a problem for the US in the past.
Right. So, what's your point?
One could reasonably argue...
This is an opinion, stated as if fact. You can't simply state that your argument 'is' "reasonab[e]."
...that the raping resources from Third World nations led by dictators, and the repression and deaths which resulted from such regimes, that exerting such power and influence in such a manner itself could be deemed as a weapon of mass destruction.
LOL; indeed, perhaps, PartyTime, such could be deemed so.
But again, what does that have to do with our presently being enemies with nations/entities we've been friendly with/provided aid to in the past (Iraq, Cuba, Afghani mujahedin-cum-al Qaeda, etc.)? And does that same point of conjecture apply to the U.S. currently being friendly with nations we've fought or been enemies with in the past (Japan, Germany, Spain, Russia, Italy, etc.)?
What is the intrinsic nature of that criticism?
I guess it's sort of a mirror thing, you know.
Censure of a philosophical nature, then, you're saying?
Look in the mirror--what do you see? Who are you? Where have you been? What have you done? What are you going to do? Does all look right?
I don't know about you, but to me it looks far more "right" to, in a volatile, tumultuous world of constantly shifting alliances and changing needs, make those decisions as unique situations, current needs, and global political/economic/military environs dictate.
The real world involves making choices, many of which involve choosing the least of what are only bad choices - especially in retrospect - and almost all of which are made possessing incomplete information.
I'd personally be more condemning, and fearful, of a foreign policy approach that held any foreign relationship as effectively inviolate.
LPS5 |
