Two mantras of the anti-war crowd seem to run like this:
1. The United States is to blame for Saddam's atrocities because we 'created' him.2. The war in Iraq has ruined a once-peaceful country, making a mess of the place.
Let's ignore the huge elisions in these -- such as the hell that was life under Saddam. Instead, we'll grant both of these for the sake of discussion.
If they are both true, then don't they merely strengthen the obligation we have to see this through to the end?
If we created Saddam, then don't we have a moral obligation to aid the people we inflicted him upon? That's called restitution in some circles.
If we've ruined the country and brought in chaos, then don't we have a responsibility to clean up our own mess? Or are you so unspeakably naive as to believe things will get better if the restraining presence of our troops is removed?
Posted by Discoshaman at November 18, 2005 06:43 PM | TrackBackBloody good questions, DS... The libs like to look so moral and holier-than-thou-since-we're so-nice-and-you're-not; these questions should certainly make them show their true colors.
Yanno - I'm really not an unreasonable person, and I understand how people can have different opinions on the topic, but this.... baffles me completely! What the hell are the libs gaining? I can't believe - even though it's probably true - that they really want the US to become a socialist, Big Brother, dhimmi country...
I simply cannot wrap my mind around that attitude.
-- R'cat
CatHouse Chat
No argument from me. I'm a big believer in the "You broke it, you bought it" school of intrnational relations.
Of course, whether current policy has any chance of fixing things is a whole nother question. But you won't hear me howling for a withdrawal timeline.
Posted by: The Liberal Media at November 18, 2005 03:55 PM