ROFL
so there are lots of illegitimate governments around the world- and a ton of them in the ME- are you going to go after all of them? And if you are, where is your mandate for forcing the world to come around to your definition of "legitimate" government? And if you are only going to go after some, for your own subjective reasons, how can you justify intervention in some cases, and not others? (I don't think you can)
The government that the Iraqi people tolerate, without breaking into armed insurrection is the legitimate government. IMO it is the responsibility of a people to change their own government. If we allow outside forces to intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations, we open that sort of intervention up to every one- not just people who think of "legitimate" the way you do. It is more stable to make sure that intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations is minimal, and governed by strict rules. I hold this view because I feel it is the best one for the US, not because it helps Saddam out.
Many countries have rather barbaric standards of conduct- that doesn't give us the right (imo) to interfere- and even more importantly, it doesn't make intervention a good idea, and it doesn't make it beneficial for the US to intervene.
Far from being about Saddam, my opposition to intervention is about what is best for the US. I owe my loyalty to the US, and my decisions always start with the premise that what is best for the US, is best. (Of course what I consider best for the US is probably different than what you think would be best- but I think the US tangled up in Iraq's government, would be very very very bad for us.)
Will you understand that the above is not about justifying Saddam and his regime? I have my doubts. |
