Thanks for fessing up to invasion being the "caring" option. Did you read the article I sent you? Clinton wasn't lifting sanctions, and other democrats were against it. They thought the sanctions were having an effect-and then there was sanctions plus, and the plans to help solidify the Saddam opposition groups. True, not as spectacular as an invasion, but those efforts did represent other ways some people of the left were working against Saddam. I hope you count the work AI has done against Saddam (and AI is simply INFESTED with lefties). So I have found them, and I have specified them- and you won't like them, because no doubt they are not as efficacious as a "caring" invasion. So Nadine, put the attack dogs back in the kennel, and let's try to agree that there were strategies for dealing with Saddam that did not include invasion, but that you do not like those solutions because you don't think they are as effective as the invasion we launched, and the occupation we are engaged in. If the occupation turns out to have horrible results, what then Nadine? Will we just say "oops"? Will we say "Well, we cared about you so much we just had to try invading your country." I realize you think it was the right thing to do, but can you see the other side at all?
FWIW I understand why you were frustrated with what the Clinton administration did wrt Iraq, but I don't happen to agree that rash leaps to invasions on silly pretexts (even for semi-secret noble humanitarian reasons) is the cure for frustration. |
