Quote:
|
Originally posted by clarkgoble: Regarding the earlier US/Iraq connection: the law of unintended consequences. BTW - conservative estimates are that over the past few years over 100,000 children in Iraq have died due to poor water. Exactly how do you suggest we do the calculus? Do we only count casualties in war, but not from torture or keeping medical care and hygene from people? Or is it that we only count when the pictures make Americans look bad? I don't discount the horrible civilian cost. However clearly the US is desparately trying to minimize them - to the degree that they are risking their own lives. Yet there definitely is a double standard often going on. All I ask is that if you make these judgments you define what counts as horrible so we can determine which state of affairs is worse. |
there is no doubt that the GPS guided weapons have spared a lot of innocent lifes. Nevertheless, it was very hypocritical to ask Saddam to disarm first, then to say that it really did not matter if he disarmed, he would have to be gone. He is a bad bad dictator, but he has been supported by the western countries whenever this was in their best interest, thi including the US France, the UK, Germany. The iraqui people has been suffering since day one, and will suffer more during this war.
Yeah maybe the inspections were not fast enough for the political agenda of the american politics, but they were definitely less brutal and bloody than any war, and they were containing Saddam. Khadafi was contained (by Reagan himsef, supposedly the best president since Washington) but Saddam could not be? Oh but wait, Khadafi had no oil.... Bush is seeing the presidential elections in less than 2 years, and the economy slumping fast so he must act now.
That's sad. Just sad.
Villa