One of the things that has always made discussion with you difficult is that so many of your basic premises are false, and then one has to deal with those before you can go back to the argument at hand. It's kind of like arguing complex NASA policy with an otherwise intelligent person who still thinks the sun revolves around the Earth.
We are not dealing with Iraqi "self-defense."
We are dealing with remnants of the Baathists, foreign fighters, and al Qaeda terrorists from many countries. These people are pouring in from Iran and Syria, along with money and weapons. The objectives vary. The Baathists want Saddam back in power, or some version of him. The Iranians want a Shiite theocracy. None of them want a free Iraq.
These thugs number in the few thousands at most, out of a nation of millions. The media have no trouble projecting these few thousands as though they were every Iraqi in existence. I can think of examples of this in our own country.
Try and hammer this into your head. These are not noble Minutemen and a "Revolution of the People" that we are dealing with.
I have no doubts that your morality is in the right place. Now work on the reasoning and observation.
Current Events » in reply to For decent people there's a difference between invading a country without provovation and pounding the hell out of the citizenry,
"Self defense"
The whole thread (24 posts)
- "Well, It Was a Good Idea in '46"
- re: "Well, It Was a Good Idea in '46"
- For decent people there's a difference between invading a country without provovation and pounding the hell out of the citizenry,
- Larry Miller is a contributing HUMORIST to The Daily Standard and a WRITER, ACTOR, and COMEDIAN living in Los Angeles.
