Amongst oil taking, destroying the countries infrastructure and ensuring Christian and minority Iraqis are persecuted due to the fact their support system was removed and hundreds of thousands displaced, plunging the country into a civil war ... Do i go on?
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us
in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down
and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon
you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Maybe we just view the world and liberty different than you.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
You could see by the guess that Iraq war would be over in weeks was ridiculous. If they even picked up a book on Iraq's history, they would have realised the quagmire they'd be dragged down into.
Laila, you're not making much sense and it is because your comments are incompatible with one another.
If you're going to argue that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur warrants US involvement, then you must also argue that the humanitarian crisis in pre-war Iraq also warranted US involvement. You cannot be intellectually consistent otherwise.
It appears that your resistance to intellectual consistency here is that you disagree with the war in Iraq. Such disagreement can be reasonable, but your disagreement with Iraq even as a humanitarian exercise undermines your argument for US involvement in Darfur.
Seriously...what is this fetish with Darfur? Liberals and Democrats in the US incessantly argue that Darfur warrants immediate and even unilateral military action despite the fact that there are no US interests at stake there. Meanwhile, despite there being acual interests in Iraq and substantial interests regionally, after things got tough in Iraq, these same weasels started backtracking and arguing that the US unjustifiably went to Iraq unilaterally.
I can only presume that the inconsistency is caused not by a legitimate or valid foreign relations philosophical argument but simply a hatred of Bush. I'm nearly convinced that had there been a Democrat in office that many of these people would have had no problem with the war in Iraq.