So substitute "Criminally Negligent" for "Criminally responsible".
Now tell me that it isn't hypocritical of the US to not go into Rwanda,
and to openly state that 800,000 people being murdered is of no
consequence to the US because Rwanda has no strategic value to the US,
but charge into Iraq( unilaterally mind you) and state one of its goals
as 'freeing'/'saving' the Iraqi people.
If the issue was with saving people, then those 800,000 would not have
died. But the issue, quite clearly, is whether or not the location and
its stability is of strategic importance to the US.
I'm not even getting into whether this is right or wrong, but I can't
understand why so many sweep this simple fact of US Foreign Policy under
the table while describing the US's actions as almost altruistic when it
is most certainly not.
I also can't understand why any objective and impartial individual would
seek to defend such behavior.
-Gel
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug White
Not at all, perhaps criminally negligent but not responsible - the
perpetrator
is the one criminally responsible. By any logical measure.
--
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.7.1 - Release Date: 4/6/2004
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
