werent
the resilient nation we are, able to adapt and overcome, we would have
probably gone
the way of an iraq, a north korea an iran...ruled by one philosophy and
unable to change
since it wasn't the original intention..
I cannot see the difference apart from the physical force involved
between ousting saddam and freeing the iraqi people.
its two roads to the same destination.
were just learning along the way, unfortunately.
tw
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:21 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
The main problem with the moral argument is that it's not applied
evenly.
Yes, Iraq may be better off now, but the moral high-ground was not the
launching point of the war: there are perhaps dozens of places that have
it
just as bad or worse and we do little or nothing there.
Moral reasoning may make us feel better in the aftermath, but it was
never a
primary reason for going to war.
We didn't go in to free the Iraqi people; we went in to oust Saddam.
There
is a subtle, but important difference there.
Jim Davis
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
