I don't think you read that whole sentence, and what followed it...
"If you really want me to dig up people of the left who thought it was urgent to work against Saddam in non-military ways, I will be happy to do it- but I think what you really want is for me to find people of the left who wanted to take Saddam out violently- and I'd say to you, that this is not necessarily "caring" for the beleaguered people of Iraq. It might turn out ok, what we have done in terms of "regime change" (and what a euphemism that is for what we have done) but the chances were so great that it might not turn out well that people of the left might very well have thought that it was better for Iraq, and for the US, to work in other ways. If you cannot even see the possibility that this might have been a logical and even caring way of looking at things(especially with the way events have unfolded in Iraq, which, I think, makes the left look fairly prescient) I think we should end this conversation. "
Lots on this- and the plans that were on the menu for invasion, under Clinton (who is on the left, I think):
wsws.org
In another article key democrats were described as being unhappy with Clinton's desire to postpone the invasion, and they wanted to discuss other ideas. Seems like some people on the left had the same militaristic solutions as you do. I can't say I agree with them (regarding the benefits of an invasion), but there's evidence of some "caring" if you want to define "caring" as invasion and occupation, which you apparently do. There are many in the world who might want to eschew the kind of "caring" you have on offer. |
