I don't know. You seemed to want to complain about anyone discussing liberation as if it was somehow dishonest.
While it is not the purpose of this operation, it certainly must be computed into the equation since millions of lives will depend upon what we do or do not do in regards to humanitarian aid, replacement government etcetera.
While I will agree anyone who tries to say this is simply a war of liberation would be buying into the PR too much, liberation PR for folks to whom WMD and their threat seems somehow intangible is a good tactic.
I think what you are really upset about is how successful Bush & Co. have been able to take the fire out from under the protesters morality issues by a well engineered "Iraqi Freedom" campaign which has improved his poll numbers and the support from the American public.
That's why you, Buck, Mary Anne and Robert are lashing out in cynicism - not because of America's imminent defeat or even the casualties of this conflict*, but really Bush's impending success and the possibility of an America that doesn't listen to the UN anymore. The Left in Britain can't believe that Clinton's pal Tony Blair, a Labor Party PM, actually likes George and Laura - and trusts Bush's judgment much more than either of the Clinton's.
That's what has got to be darn frustrating!
SDAI-Tech1
*This is assumed due to the lack of concern, I perceived for previous atrocities committed by Saddam which were disregarded as internal issues of a foreign and sovereign government and definitely not worthy of our interference.
Current Events » in reply to What is the issue of debate, then?
Re: What is the issue of debate, then?
The whole thread (66 posts)
- Okay, I have had enough.
- Re: Okay, I have had enough.
- That's all he can stands, he can't stands no more!
- So what should the people of Iraq have done? Chased Saddam away? (n/t) (n/t)
- I agree
- Re: Okay, I have had enough.
- Dr Thomas Barnett...
- Agree to Disagree
- Besides
- Re: Dr Thomas Barnett...
- Analogy
