Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
That article is two years old. We are giving them 500 million dollars now. That is substantially different, though neither can be defensible.
Ok, think about it this way. Lets say we didn't invade Iraq this year. Saddam is still in power. We are having "problems" with Iran. So we start giving Saddam 500 million dollars a year to train and equip his military and generally do whatever he sees fit with that money. He is still torturing and killing and "ethnic cleansing" his country. And starts using the brutal mustard gas on the Iranians again, with invoice slips that came from us, again.
Can you support that? Cause it's the same exact fucking thing.
Saddam and Karimov don't have a whit of difference between them.
How is that for your strange bedfellows and doing what is in Americas best interest? Where is your vaunted care for the welfare of the Iraqi people now?
Perhaps, if I need a lesson in global politics and am ignorant. You need a lesson in morality, human rights, and human decency.
|
Human decency? If you had your way, Saddam would still be killing "theives and cowards".
The world is not black and white. To catch the greater evil, sometimes we need to make deals with the lesser evil. Is it right? No, its not. It plain sucks. But we do what we have to do to solve the problem at hand. I assume you would be happier ishould we make things harder for us to solve our problems? Had we not gone about this with the minimal losses that we did. you would be happier?
In a few years when Iraq, Afganistan, Libya ( hopefully Iran too, as they are talking with us now about inspections) Then we can deal with Uzbekistan.
Too bad we can not solve all the world's problems at once. But then if we did, wouldnt you and others scream that we are interfering?
We pick our battles, and solve them and move on. No one nation can do it all at once.
But that is not your argument, you know that. You just dont like the success Bush is having and want to malign it at any and every opportinity.