There is something ludicrous, about this sudden conversion to humanitarianism
Whose conversion to humanitarianism?
I don't dispute what happened in Argentina. I have friends there.
Argentina, then, has nothing to do with Iraq, today.
The US policy regarding S America then is not the same as its policy regarding S America now.
US is withdrawing support for dictators and has been since the end of the cold war. I find nothing "ludicrous" in this and think it's a tremendously good thing.
This "humanitarian" line, is just an attempt, after the fact, to construct a plausible fall-back position, now that the principle reason for the war has been discredited. You can't hide the Wolfowitz under a sheep's pelt.
The principal reason, in my view and I argued it here since the very start of my contributions to this board, was the nature of the Iraq regime. I've always said the possible ownership of WMDs is far less significant than the nature of the regime.
I note, and you don't, except to say it's only a convenient excuse, that nearly every time Bush mentioned Iraq in the year leading up to the invasion, he talked about the evil nature of the Iraq regime with plenty of evidence other than WMDs, and was mostly focused on the necessity of regime change, as was the previous administration and Congress.
I stand by what I said in my post to you. Your "Kantian" argument is a prescription for rote action and is an excuse for lack of ethical responsibility. |
