Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't answer hypotheticals, but I think you are comparing to Iraq. I'll answer accordingly.
There were humanitarian reasons for taking out Sadamm. Do you differentiate because thet were put forth as the 4th or 5th reason?
|
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." How was that a hypothetical? I was asking if you thought Dean's explanation (which cites Iraq) failed to address the apparent contradiction underscored by the story's headline. Seems pretty concrete to me.
In response to your question, I agree that there were humanitarian reasons to invade Iraq, but I believe the humanitarian component was not a major factor in starting the tanks rolling (cf. the 50 Marines who were sent to Liberia last year).
But perhaps the view from my ivory tower is misleading. Do you think it was a major factor? In absence of the ominous WMD threat, would the gassing of the Kurds, the suppression of the Shi'ites, the rape squads, etc etc, have prompted or justified a unilateral military intervention?
