From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 03:01:45 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> I'll even concede that benefiting the people of Iraq is probably not
> our major motivation for removing its government. After all, there are
> other despots--even such monsters as Pol Pot, who made Hussein look like
> a boy scout--who we did not choose to remove. But even with all that
> conceded, it is still a dishonest rhetorical trick to say that we are
> in fact attacking the people of Iraq, when we are doing no such thing.
>
I think what you are saying here is a dishonest rhetorical
trick. Our reason for invading Iraq is no more regime change
than it is benefitting the people of Iraq than it is WMD. So to
now act as if regime change and therefore an attack on
government is the sole or the real motive sufficiently to say we
were only attacking a government seems quite inaccurate to say
the least. We want control of that region for economic and
geo-political reasons. We also want to send a message to other
countries to toe our line. There is a lot more going on than an
attack on a particular government and a lot more suffers the
consequences than just the government. When a country is
invaded the entire country is invaded including the homes, peace
and safety of the people of that country. To pretend otherwise
is dishonest.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 03:04:12 MDT