From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 22:50:26 MDT
Damien S. writes
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 12:58:15PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> > But when it comes to a far off place like Iraq or Kashmir
> > I don't see any evidence that they have cared about the
> > loss of human life (and therefore coming up with ways to
> > solve the problems) in decades.
>
> Not like they've vastly different from us in that respect. People are dying
> in North Korea, and we do close to nothing. People are dying throughout the
> Third World due to lack of food, water, hygiene, or medicine, and we don't do
> much.
Well, I want to know, then: Would you support a U.S. led invasion
of Cuba tomorrow? Do you personally think that the coalition forces
should next invade North Korea? If not, then aren't you being a
bit disingenuous here?
Not only that, but you saw how murderously difficult it was to get
political support in the U.S., England, and Australia even to
take out Saddam Hussein---twelve years of resolutions and sanctions
(at 5000 children a month dying from the sanctions? or was that
just propaganda?). Yet despite ease of operations in that
country for a Western power, and despite the wickedness of his
regime, without 9-11 it would not have been politically possible.
If you think that the "war" protestors, or the Democrats in the U.S.
got agitated over attacking Saddam's regime, just think about
how bent out of shape they'd be if someone mentioned attacking
Castro! Or North Korea!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 23:01:10 MDT