Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
You Liberals call yourselves stewards of the unprotected and unfortuante, where is your compassion for the Iraqi's that have been to hell and back under that maniac Saddam? Saddam was responsible for the deaths of nearly 2 million people, the world is a better place with him gone. Further more everyone should be thankful that the death rate of American/ British soldiers has been this low.
|
Now, now. Calm down.
A lot of people (liberals) do not object to saving the Iraqis from the tyranny of Hussein (good riddance, IMHO), but rather object to the way this war was launched. It was launched pre-emptively, under false pretenses (or at the very least with sketchy justification), and with little realistic planning for the rebuilding of the country or any kind of exit strategy. And while I AM thankful that the death rate has been this low, I object to our troops being sent over there with no real plan for how to keep them safe and bring them home. Conservatives on this forum are always saying "it's easy to be compassionate with other peoples' money." Well, it's easy to be heroic with other peoples' lives on the line. If this was really such a humanitarian crisis (as it's being painted now, since we can't find the supposed WMDs), why aren't we intervening in other totalitarian regimes worse than this one? (Saudi Arabia, any of half-a-dozen African nations, etc.) You can't just go rushing in on a white horse, knock over a few statues and kick out the ruling dictator without then taking responsibility for making things right. And you shouldn't thumb your nose at potential allies when their assistance could mean the difference between suffering of the Iraqi people and our American troops, and a quick and much less painful transition to home rule. Not even when it means sharing power and giving up some control over how things are done.