Doug Pensinger wrote:
> What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda?
Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had something useful enough for past European imperialists to colonize the country, and the critics could use that.
There have been very few critics of our intervention in Bosnia. Even those who were opposed to it at the time point to it as proof of our good intentions.
> If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was > our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission > would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another > $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards > ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure?
Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical companies.
> Only those who have dishonest motives themselves.
France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't hurt them so far.
Are you sure about that? Were _all_ of France's motives for opposing the war dishonest? And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea.
-- Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
